W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: animate-elem-46-t.svg

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:29:13 -0700
Message-ID: <4C0E7DE9.9020601@mozilla.com>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Olaf,

On 06/08/2010 09:05 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
 > Well, if you want to use 'namespace' as typically used,
 > CSS has none at all

Heh -- well, I wouldn't say I *want* to use the word "namespace" -- I was 
just using it because the spec uses it there. :)

In the paragraph of SVG spec that I quoted, it looks like "namespace" is 
just being used as shorthand for "language", or "set of valid 
attributes/values", etc.  Given your (valid) point about there being no 
literal CSS namespace, I think this generalized interpretation is the most 
reasonable reading of that chunk.

But...
 > That units are optional or not allowed under some circumstances
 > is such an exception, explicitly mentioned in the SVG specifications.
 > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/types.html#DataTypeLength

So after having reviewed that link, I think I concede on this issue -- 
types.html does indeed say (emphasis added):
   "The common data types for SVG's **properties** and attributes"
...and ...
   "The format of a <length> is a <number>  **optionally** followed 
immediately by a unit identifier."

FWIW, I'd read that <length> chunk before, but I only just now noticed the 
explicit mention of "properties" in the header text above the data types. 
  (So 'til now, I'd thought that the unitless-values-allowed rule applied 
only to attributes, and that the CSS spec had the final say over what a 
valid CSS <length> value is, even in SVG.)

So, given the explicit mention of [CSS] "properties" above the allowance 
for unitless <length> values, I retract my objection to animate-elem-46-t.svg.

Thanks for the discussion,
~Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:30:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:45 GMT