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

That's an interesting use-case, Erik (no pun intended).  Currently, views
don't have any effect in inline SVG, but I can definitely see applications
for it with <use>; e.g., draw a complex figure and then have a second,
zoom-in region elsewhere on the page.  To create that effect currently, you
would need to re-use the <svg> as a whole, but adjust the width/height on
the <use> element so that it is larger or smaller than the second SVG, in
order to zoom and clip it to the correct region.  Definitely not as
intuitive as a <view>.

OK, now for the opposite side of the argument.  You ask "The main point is
that <view> essentially behaves like an <svg> or <symbol>, so why should it
be different than those for <use>?"

The difference of course is that you can't just take the <view> element and
all its child content and copy that.  You're actually re-using the <svg>,
but with the modifications from the view.

I don't see any reason with adding special rules for views -- there are
already special rules for <svg> and for <symbol> -- but I think people
might want to take a look at their implementation code to see if this would
cause any strange complications.  E.g., the <view> element is itself a
child of the re-used <svg>.  Would that cause a strange loop?  Would you be
able to correctly detect a circular reference when a <use> element
references a <view> within the *same* <svg>?  That sort of thing.

~ABR