Re: [svg2] Should <use> be allowed to reference <view> elements?

Having two inline svg fragments and making one reference the other was the  
use-case I was after, avoiding the need for having external files*.

Example:
<html>
   <svg>... <view id="foo"/></svg>
   <svg><use xlink:href="#foo"/></svg>
</html>

My reason for finding this was because I wanted to quickly make an example  
to test out viewTarget :)

And to answer Cameron's comment about <view> applying to the outermost  
<svg> parent, that's fine for the use-case above. The main point is that  
<view> essentially behaves like an <svg> or <symbol>, so why should it be  
different than those for <use>?

Cheers
/ed

* Note that data URIs with a fragment part isn't supported in all  
browsers, so that's unfortunately not an option either.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:08:24 +0100, Amelia Bellamy-Royds  
<amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as referencing a view in the same document, the circular reference
> issues would come into effect, similar to a <use> referencing the parent
> <svg> element.  However, if you wanted to <use> a particular view of an  
> SVG
> in a different file, it could be useful.
>
> From an authoring perspective,
>
> <use href="otherFile.svg#view" />
>
> isn't that much different from
>
> <image href="otherFile.svg#view" />
>
> except that you should get style inheritance for the <use>.
>
>
> From an implementation perspective, however, we'd need special rules to
> enable this.  Basically, you would be re-using the <svg> (and all it's
> child content), but with the modified attributes, title, and desc from  
> the
> view.
>
> ~Amelia
>
> On 4 November 2015 at 15:28, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>
>> On 4 Nov 2015, at 8:13 pm, Erik Dahlström <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> a <view> element defines a view for its parent <svg> element. The <use>
>> element is allowed to reference <svg> elements. So, should <use> be  
>> allowed
>> to reference a <view> element?
>>
>>
>> In http://www.w3.org/2015/08/25-svg-minutes.html#item03 we resolved that
>> <view> doesn’t define a view for its closest ancestor <svg>, but the  
>> outer
>> <svg>.  If we allowed <use> to reference <view>, and if we were  
>> consistent
>> with this decision, it wouldn’t be so useful.

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 08:14:51 UTC