W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: SVG <length> to <length> | <percentage>

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:43:26 +1000
Message-ID: <50317A1E.7080203@mcc.id.au>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
CC: "www-svg@w3.org list" <www-svg@w3.org>
Dirk Schulze:
> The "Chapter 4: Basic Data Types and Interfaces" [1] needs some clean
> up. It still references CSS2 instead of newer CSS specs. Since we
> already have an issue there, it does not influence the FPWD.
>
> We redefine a lot of data types which we shouldn't and don't seem to
> be necessary.

Agreed; I've been meaning to cut a lot of that section out.

> <length> We support '%' for presentation attributes, but not for CSS
> properties. Instead we should replace any appearance of <length>
> with: <length> | <percentage>. Browsers support it anyway IIRC.

Browsers support percentages in style sheets for SVG properties defined 
to just take a <length>?  If that's so, then I agree, we should mention 
<percentage> explicitly.

> <color> and <angle> Don't need special casing anyway.

What about units for <angle>?

> <anything> Is often used for identifiers. In these case we should
> replace it with <ident> from CSS3 Values.

Yes.

> <coordinate> replace every appearance  with: <length> | <percentage>

I have often wondered about the difference between <length> and 
<coordinate>.

> There are maybe a couple more types that I don't list here. I would
> suggest removing the syntax from SVG, link to the responsible CSS
> specification that defines it, and add a notation that for SVG
> presentation attributes what missing unit means.

Agreed completely.
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 23:44:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:52 GMT