I agree there should be a Group object. The problem is that the way the classes are currently constructed is that 100 pixel “Rect" positioned at 100,100 actually contains the following markup: <svg x=“100” y=“100"><rect x=“0” y=“0” width=“100” height=“100”/></svg>
I think the reason it was done this way was to make it possible to add Rects (and similar) directly to HTML elements. I suppose we could change the way the classes are setup (and drawn) so that <rect> <circle> and the like could only be added to elements which legally can contain them (such as <svg> and <g>). On Jul 26, 2016, at 8:38 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 7/26/16, 8:19 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Both. >> >> In SVG we're actually struggling with the same (or rather similar) issue. >> >> There’s a big difference between: >> <div><svg><rect/></svg><svg><circle/></svg></div> >> >> and >> <div><svg><g><rect/><circle/></g></svg></div> >> >> Each svg has its own coordinate space, and svg elements cannot have >> transform properties. This is proving to be quite difficult in terms of >> transformations. >> >> Ideally, it should be easy to pick whether you want to wrap each shape in >> its own SVG element or have them all in the same svg element (or g >> element). Currently GraphicShape draws each shape with its own svg >> wrapper. CompoundShape, on the other hand, draws separate objects within >> a single svg element. GraphicContainer takes svg-type elements as >> children, but does not care exactly which type. >> >> I think there should also be a GraphicGroup object which would be a g >> element and take children. >> >> I’m struggling with how to specify whether svg element have the svg >> wrapper and not. (Ideas welcome!) > > IMO, I suspect there exist SVG snippets in the world that folks might want > to repurpose into their FlexJS apps. Having a simple 1:1 mapping between > tags is probably the best strategy. Are folks worried about the overhead > of that verbosity? IMO, it is always possible to provide aggregations, > but aggregations make assumptions and often someone will come back and ask > for the low-level. > > For example, in Flex Spark (and FlexJS) specifying a layout for a > container takes 3 lines: > > <Container> > <layout> > <VerticalLayout /> > </layout> > </Container> > > In Flex MX, it is one line: > > <Container layout="Vertical" /> > > The problem is that you can't specify other properties on the > VerticalLayout in MX, and Horizontal and Absolute layout are baked into > the MX container and are linked into your code, and you can't add new > layouts. > > So for graphics, if I understand the issue, why not add a <g> or <Group> > tag and make folks use it where they need it? > > My 2 cents, > -Alex
