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

Re: Some practical issues integrating the SVG transform attribute with CSS transform properties

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:00:30 +0100
Message-ID: <259618195.20110326220030@w3.org>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Anthony Grasso <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Friday, March 25, 2011, 10:51:57 PM, Robert wrote:

ROC> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Anthony Grasso
ROC> <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au> wrote:
ROC> I remember from past discussions in the FX Group that the
ROC> “transform” attribute and “transform” property behave
ROC> differently. At least for “transform-origin” it’s currently
ROC> defined that way [1] . We  originally decided that the CSS
ROC> property will override the SVG attribute (which is how it works with current SVG I think).

ROC> Have you got a reference to those discussions? It's not clear to
ROC> me what "CSS property overrides the SVG attribute" would actually
ROC> mean. Does it mean something different from the way
ROC> presentational attributes normally map into CSS?

It means exactly that. A presentation attribute has a specificity of zero, so if the property is set by any style rule, that rule will have higher specificity.

 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 21:00:47 UTC

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