W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2001

RE: separating svg data from presentation

From: Mjumbe Ukweli <mjumbewu@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:11:44 -0400
To: maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com, www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <F120QR7j1HaKtKufVma000012a0@hotmail.com>
>From: "Max Dunn" <maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com>
>Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 10:07:07 -0700
>
>Hi Mjumbe,
>
>That's an interesting perspective.  Where did you hear it stated that SVG
>was "concerned with describing the geometry of an image, not the color,
>etc."?...

absolutely nowhere.  i would automatically assume that any XML namespace is 
used to describe data because that's what XML does; each namespace just has 
a different type of data to represent.  the W3C says that "SVG is a language 
for describing two-dimensional graphics in XML."  clear enough.  "SVG allows 
for three types of graphic objects: vector graphic shapes (e.g., paths 
consisting of straight lines and curves), images and text."  okay, stop.  
now right there we have our data: vector shapes, images and text.  what can 
we do with it?  "Graphical objects can be grouped, styled, transformed and 
composited into previously rendered objects."  alright, we're set.  now i 
would say that anything that is not grouping, transforming, compositing, or 
describing vector shapes, images or text would go in the category of style.

>I would imagine the strongest argument for placing a functionality in CSS 
>as
>opposed to SVG would be if it is a functionality that would be used by 
>other
>namespaces that use CSS (i.e. XHTML)...

that was the idea that i was going for, actually.  there are times when i'd 
like to use a gradient background for my html documents without reverting to 
an background-image.  there maybe someone who wants to put a bevel on his or 
her mathml content.  <shrug/>

>Interesting thought though, do you have a rigorous definition of what would
>move to CSS?  Seems to me it would be hard to draw the line.

it would certainly be difficult, but perhaps worth the effort so here i go.  
i would say that gradients and patterns (aka background images) should be 
the first to go to CSS.  other features that i think <em>might</em> be 
better placed in CSS are filter effects and possibly masking/clipping 
(though i'm not too sure about that one).  none of these (except arguably 
masking/clipping) falls under the categories of the "three types of graphic 
objects: vector graphic shapes..., images [or] text."

>I wonder what Chris Lilley will have to say about the criteria for placing
>functionality in SVG as opposed to CSS.

as would i.

>
>Max
>www.siliconpublishing.org/

                                                  &#8226; mjumbe &#8226;

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 15:12:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:20 GMT