[sldev] [VWR] What about Dillo

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 07-Nov-2007, at 14:04, Joshua Bell wrote:
> That snippet of HTML leaves quite a bit of detail to the  
> implementation

Intentionally. I would have done the same for the SVG if I knew what  
could be left out in this application, which is precisely what I was  
referring to in the sentence starting with "Should the SVG viewbox ..."

> - the DIV is not given a size and since it's a fragment most of the  
> presentation (size, background color, wrapping, etc) is undefined.

The DIV is to be applied to a texture. The size of the DIV is the  
size of the texture it's being applied to. The background color is  
the texture. That is, the texture is the container. The browser would  
provide whatever wrapping that's necessary to create the HTML around  
the background texture that makes all this fall into place. The same  
would be done for the SVG.

> I'd hate to couple the standard for display of SL content to any  
> particular renderer implementation (e.g. Gecko vs. ...?) or we fall  
> into the Quirks Mode hell of the web.

Neither would I, which is why I want llRenderText explicitly factored  
out as a separate API.

I'm not really convinced that either HTML or SVG is efficient enough  
for this application to begin with.