W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2005

How to add properties to the CSS syntax (Was: several messages)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:21:09 +0000 (UTC)
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0510191433190.23945@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 
> > I believe that many issues have been raised over the years along these 
> > lines (e.g. the fact that 'font' in SVG 1.0 is not compatible with 
> > 'font' in CSS1 was raised many years ago -- still not addressed, by 
> > the way).
> 
> To the best of my knowledge this specific issue was never raised, 
> despite at least three formal reviews of the SVG specification by the 
> CSS WG.

It has been raised as LC comments for SVG 1.0, SVG 1.2 Full, and SVG 1.2 
Tiny (second LC).

The earliest reference to it that I can find is from April 1999:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/1999Apr/0028


> > Consider. Would the SVG working group object to the CSS working group 
> > introducing an <svg:flow> element to the SVG namespace?
> 
> If done in coordination and with review from the SVG WG, no, probably 
> not.

Right. Well, the same applies to the CSSWG. With the XSL WG, we have this 
coordination -- for example, the XSLWG has a fulltime member of the CSSWG 
who comes to our meetings and everything. CDF too, and indeeed CDF has had 
its additions to the CSS specs recently, we even had entire shared 
WG-to-WG joint meetings at plenaries where we discussed exact text.

The closest we have seen to "coordination" with the SVG WG is the request 
for last call comments, where we discovered that the specs introduced a 
host of new properties, values, syntaxes, et al, without any prior 
consolutation, and without accepting "no" for an answer. I believe it is 
because of this behaviour that the CSS working group is more clearly 
asserting its role now -- if we are to be held responsible for ensuring 
interoperability between implementations that use our MIME type, then we 
need to be able to ensure that the MIME type's definition works.

At the moment, it clearly doesn't. For example, there is no consistent way 
to parse a user stylesheet in an implementation of CSS1 and SVG 1.0 -- a 
rather critical piece of functionality to have broken.

The SVG WG would, I'm sure, be welcome to work with the CSS WG to develop 
a CSS3 Module that introduces SVG's properties to the CSS syntax in a 
manner consistent with the rest of CSS, just like the XSL and CDF (and 
even Math) working groups have been working with us. I imagine this would 
require someone from SVG to attend our meetings and edit a specification.

Note that none of this precludes SVG from adding properties to the global 
W3C space; we are not in any way gatekeepers of that.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 16:21:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:41 GMT