W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: CSS Properties defined by other specs

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:22:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBeGtTTTbBumfLi=NFUurW+upP-zBWt4syF5TUBX3qAYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-svg-wg@w3.org WG" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> I just submitted the first batch of changes to the coordinate and units section and have some questions.
>
> At the moment there is a section about "The 'transform' property". I want to come back to a thread of Cameron. Cameron asked if we add a note with a link the the definition of a property, if it is defined by a CSS spec. This is the case for the 'transform' property [1]. Should I still add the complete table with description of name, values, computed values, initial value and so on? At the moment I just have the name, and the information that it is animatable. Is that enough?

Whatever you feel is most readable.  The name + link should be fine,
but if you feel it would help the readability of that section of SVG
to have a more complete table (in particular, the syntax), feel free.

> If not, how do we handle the case that a property definition changes on the CSS side?

Have a statement that the normative definition of the property is in
spec CSS-foo.  The CSS specs now have boilerplate stating how to
resolve conflicts in favor of newer modules.

> What is with the properties 'transform-origin', 'perspective', 'perspective-origin', 'back face-visibility' and 'transform-style'. Do they need to be mentioned in SVG 2.0?

A mention would probably be good, since they're useful in SVG and
readers of the spec may not have read the full CSS 3d transforms
section.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 18:52:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 18:52:50 GMT