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>   
ROC>  
ROC>  
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 26 March 2011 21:00:48 GMT