W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] atomic inline-element?

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:27:09 +0100
To: public-fx@w3.org
Message-Id: <201203201127.10199.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Aryeh Gregor:
> I just updated the spec with a hyperlink for those definitions, so it
> should be clear now: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/3c173d4d4749

Meanwhile I started to write a few quantitative tests about this transform
draft and because it notes only the HTML and SVG namespace, I tested
this with arbitrary XML - as far as I have seen, it seems to be applicable
in implementations as well (with the same bugs, gaps and some behaviour 
correct according to the draft), therefore it might be a good idea not
to restrict this paragraph to (X)HTML and SVG, but to distinguish maybe only
between XHTML-like content and graphics like SVG as two presentation models
and refer for the text-like content just to these CSS2.1 paragraphs, instead
of introducing a construct like 'atomic inline-level element in the HTML 

(corresponding to block-elements
the consistent reference for inline-elements will be
containing as well this paragraph about 'atomic':

Currently the draft does not mention, whether the transforms apply to other
formats than (X)HTML and SVG. Is it really intended to restrict
this on these two formats or are the current implementations ok to
apply it to arbitrary XML as well? Is it a bug to apply it to arbitrary
other XML-formats?

By the way, what happens with an alternative text representation
of SVG documents? Which model applies, if one at all?
indicates already, that it applies only for visual media, but isn't the
alternative text representation (available in only very view viewers
currently) more related to the XHTML-like text content presentation
model than to the SVG graphics model? Is it useful all all to apply
transforms to such a text alternative? Or should the author be able
to apply stylesheets specific for this?

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 10:27:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:47 UTC