- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:21:47 +1200
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>, public-fx@w3.org
On 2/08/11 4:16 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > I don't really see the point of having CSS associated with a standalone > SVG file. It makes much more sense to do CSS if the SVG is inlined in > your HTML. > Maybe the spec should be broken into these 2 use cases: > - stand-alone SVG files always use attributes. > - inline SVG always uses CSS styling I don't think we want to do away with the <style> element in standalone SVG. I find it useful, at least. > I think this will solve several issues. For instance, the problem on how > to integrate CSS transforms would go away. Well, you would still need to define what <g style="transform: ..."> does. Unless you wanted to drop the style="" attribute too. I think dropping <style> from SVG makes as much sense as dropping it from HTML. > Also, it will not break backward compatibility since there is very > little content out that is using this. > > My proposal would make standalone SVG static since CSS animations won't > work. > I don't know how much of an issue that would be. (CSS animated SVG > loaded through the <img> tag will not likely support animation anyway.) I would hope CSS Animations would work in this situation.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 04:22:32 UTC