W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [svg2] request for review of new SVG properties

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:16:57 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <499BDD89-2273-43F9-B92B-E9B9A828020E@adobe.com>

On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> marker-pattern's grammar is wrong - you want "none | [ <length> |
> <percentage> | <marker> ]+".
> The grammar is kinda weird, as written.  Normally, I'd write this as:
> "none | [ [<length> | <percentage>] <marker> ]#" - a comma separated
> list of gap+marker pairs.  This also happens to match the way that
> color-stop lists are written in gradients, which is nice.  Is there a
> strong reason to keep the current model?
> The rest are fine, but I hate the use of the <funciri> terminology.
> It's completely opaque to the author.  Just use the CSS <url>
> production - it's the exact same thing.  (This applies throughout
> SVG.)
And again, they are not the same! At least as long as CSS does not clarify that the behavior is the same. The one is taking IRI[1], the other URI[2]. This was discussed previously on masking[3] and on a discussion from Cameron[4] without conclusion.

And it does not matter how often your repeat it, they differ from the spec point of view. I would be glade if CSS can specify that url() takes URI and IRI.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/linking.html#IRIReference
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/syndata.html#uri
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0782.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0772.html

> ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 04:17:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:04 UTC