W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

name of 'filter' property and corresponding CSSStyleDeclaration property

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:13:17 +1100
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081116001317.GB8176@arc.mcc.id.au>

Another point of conflict with “the rest of the web” that you’re
all probably aware of, but which could be considered again given our
impending work on SVG Core 2.0 (or whatever name will be used).

----- Forwarded message from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> -----

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:34:05 -0800
To: David-Sarah Hopwood <david.hopwood@industrial-designers.co.uk>
Cc: es3.x-discuss@mozilla.org, es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Should host objects be able to have [[Class]] "Function",
	"Array" etc.?


On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:38 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Specifically, we expose a "filter" property on CSSStyleDeclaration,  
>> in
>> support of the SVG filter CSS property. However, many sites test for
>> "filter" to detect support for MSIE's proprietary "filter" property,
>> which sadly has the same name but completely incompatible syntax.  
>> Thus,
>> we return this kind of magical undetectable string so if tests don't
>> detect us as IE.
>
> If "many" sites are relying on the proprietary IE semantics, then it's
> a bug in the CSSStyleDeclaration API that it has incompatible  
> semantics.
> Magical oddball strings won't fix this problem -- the correct long-term
> fix is to rename the SVG 'filter' property so that it doesn't clash
> with something that is incompatible and already widely used.

Magic oddball strings fixed the sites that were actually broken. We did not 
do this just for fun, we ran into actual sites that had this problem. We 
don't know of sites that have a problem with the current behavior.

I agree with you that the SVG 'filter' property should be renamed. This has 
been raised many times with the SVG Working Group and they did not agree. 
In any case I am not asking for advice on our compatibility strategy, just 
explaining it. If you'd like, I would be happy to raise it with the SVG WG 
yet again, or you are welcome to do so yourself.

Regards,
Maciej

_______________________________________________
Es3.x-discuss mailing list
Es3.x-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es3.x-discuss


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 16 November 2008 00:14:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 November 2008 00:14:07 GMT