W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Applying SVG properties to non-SVG content

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:47:04 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600807131947g1ce54f3aj9690f89a78e96fe7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Hyatt" <hyatt@apple.com>
Cc: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:

> On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
>  There's also a strategic issue within the standards community. It seems
>> the "path of least resistance" to adding a single feature to a standard like
>> CSS (or SVG) is to just go ahead and extend CSS (or SVG) with a new spec for
>> that feature, rather than creating a dependence on another standard that has
>> that feature.
>>
>
> On the other hand if using the other standard would be clumsier than simply
> extending the original standard (as is the case with - for example -
> CSS-based gradients vs. being forced to link to an external SVG file just to
> do a gradient that is cleanly separated from your HTML presentationally),
> then I think that should be taken into consideration.


It certainly should, although in a sense doing everything in one standard is
always less clumsy than making two standards work together, so I wouldn't
want that to always be the clinching argument.

BTW a common scenario I think might emerge is that alongside a CSS
stylesheet you have a corresponding SVG file containing all the effects,
paint servers and vector artwork used by the stylesheet. I thnk this would
be a pretty good situation.

However I would not want to see this work used as an argument for preventing
> CSS from extending at all into territory that overlaps with SVG, since in
> many cases i think the CSS properties could integrate *back* into SVG (e.g.,
> CSS transforms).


Indeed.


> If the alternative would be extremely clumsy to specify in CSS, then I
> think integration with SVG is good.  However using SVG just to do
> syntactically simple effects (like transformations or gradients) is
> overkill.  (This doesn't mean we shouldn't support it as part of a more
> general mechanism, but we should not be afraid to invent "syntactic sugar"
> to make life more convenient for authors.)


I agree.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 02:47:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:39 GMT