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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:31:51 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinHwNvVJXpCmsZuoiE-8mLr2x9FcgD=WAdfBo6Y@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-fx@w3.org, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Patrick Dengler:
>> Is everyone on board for using the promotion of SVG Attributes to
>> properties as opposed to using the attr() notation? And, have we
>> landed on using -svg-r notation?
> I don’t know if everyone is on board yet, but so far it seems to have
> had the least pushback.  Tab mailed the CSS WG; I wonder if they have
> discussed it in the group yet.

There hasn't been a ton of discussion on the CSS list, but then I've
been on vacation for a week and haven't had a chance to poke at it.

In any case, it seems like the promotion of attributes to properties
is vaguely okay.

> The -svg-r notation I’m not fond of.  It’s not pleasing to the eye,
> and if any of these properties are to be extended to apply to non-SVG
> elements in the future, the name will be a hindrance.

The CSSWG, insofar as we support this effort, is against doing the
"svg-foo" thing.  We'd prefer custom names, like what Cameron has put

>> >>> Another option is to deprecate SVGAnimatedTransformList and
>> point people to CSSOM, or whatever way there is in CSS to get the
>> (animated or not) transform value as a higher level object (CSSMatrix
>> or equivalent, not DOMString).
>> What we have been considering here is that if it is set with the
>> SVGAttribute, it is is stored in the SVG OM; if it is set with CSS it
>> is stored in the CSS OM.
> So that’s agreeing with 2 and choosing 3a from Rob’s initial mail?

I don't understand the implications of this, but I don't have an
opinion on it either.

Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 22:32:43 UTC

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