Re: CSS WG comments on SVG 1.2

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Peter Sorotokin wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> CSS box model background properties to be precise; just like CSS box 
> model background properties are more or less useless for SVG renderer. 
> These things are renderer-specific. But in that particular case I agree 
> that it is a good idea to rename it to avoid confusion.

The 'background' properties apply to the block box model, the inline box 
model, the table box model, the XUL box model, the MathML box model, 
positioned elements, floats... It's not limited to a particular rendering 
model. The same applies to most of the properties in CSS.


> >  It introduces one-word
> > properties that only apply to specific models (one-word properties in CSS
> > usually apply to multiple models).
> 
> What?! Just from the top of my head:
> 
> margin, border, padding, top, bottom, left, right, width, height, widows

All of the above except "widows" apply to multiple rendering models. For 
example, 'right' is used by the relative, absolute, and fixed positioning 
models. 'height' is used by almost all the rendering models except SVG. 
And so forth.

In fact, even 'widows', which currently only applies to the pagination 
model, is being considered for other models -- in particular, there is a 
proposal to make it apply to the column rendering model.

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

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 22:57:15 UTC