W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2011

RE: CSS Animations Targeting SVG attributes

From: Anthony Grasso <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:05:15 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Message-ID: <923A4276C1903646BE5299CA8462B0A0174AB08D@exm01-wvp.cisra.canon.com.au>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2011 9:46 AM
> To: Anthony Grasso
> Cc: Dean Jackson; public-fx@w3.org; robert@ocallahan.org
> Subject: Re: CSS Animations Targeting SVG attributes
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Anthony Grasso
> <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au> wrote:
> > Tab Atkins Jr wrote:
> >> Since we're omitting the <filter>-related attributes due to CSS
> >> Filters, perhaps we could omit the gradient-related attributes due
> to
> >> CSS Gradients?  CSS and SVG gradients have a trivial mapping, albeit
> >> not one that can be expressed directly in CSS.
> >
> > Gradient-related Properties are still in the list - which is fine.
> >
> > For the following properties "linearGradient" should be added to the
> element list:
> > x1, x2, y1 and y2
> >
> > For the following properties "radialGradient" should be added to the
> element list:
> > cx, cy and r
> Again, wherever there were multiple instances of an attribute in the
> attribute index that all did the same thing, I just deleted all but
> one.  I didn't fold the deleted elements into the remaining entry.

Ah right, I just noticed I missed the top half of your previous email.

> >> Taking these suggestions would let us introduce less than 20 new
> >> properties, total.
> >
> > Given that you're pretty keen to map attributes to properties, do you
> intend on presenting both options (1. Mapping attributes, 2. Targeting
> attributes with attr())to the CSS Working Group?
> Yes, I just sent an email to the CSSWG a few minutes ago outlining all
> of the proposed options.  I also repeated my own strong objection to
> the attr() proposal. ^_^

Good - the full story with an opinion :)

The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and may also be the subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the information from your system.
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 23:05:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:45 UTC