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

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

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:25:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAERejNYOTq_G78gTzvQb1C617tmN0Bco=cHembWOEnEvFbX_NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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!

Dirk is right. The CSS specs should be changed to clearly specify that
IRIs are allowed. There were already other discussions about this
[1][2].
A quick test (using one in "background-image") showed that all major
browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari) already support IRIs. So
I suggest you replace the <url> definition by <iri> throughout the
specs and give a clear definition of what it implies.

Sebastian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0772.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0590.html
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 05:25:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT