Re: CSS WG comments on SVG 1.2

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Peter Sorotokin wrote:
> > >
> > > So would prefixing the majority of the CSS properties with "html-". 
> > > Half :)
> > 
> > There's nothing HTML-specific about CSS propertes.
> 
> To be more precise, there is something box-model specific.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Dec/0001.html

True, we could prefix the background-related properties with 'background', 
the font-related properties with 'font', the border-related properties 
with 'border', the list-related properties with 'list'... Oh wait... ;-)

However, my concern is that SVG 1.2's proposed names are actually harming 
this property separation, in fact. For example, it introduces the 
'background-fill' property despite that property having nothing to do with 
any of the other 'background-*' properties. It introduces one-word 
properties that only apply to specific models (one-word properties in CSS 
usually apply to multiple models). And so forth.

So I don't buy the argument that there is a parallel between prefixing the 
SVG properties with 'svg-' and prefixing the box-model properties with 
'box-'.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'