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

Re: using CSS syntax for presentation attributes

From: <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:53:56 -0400
Message-ID: <49630.1337781236@zoominternet.net>
To: SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
 Hi Cameron (heycam)
 Being in the middle of some presentations on HTML5, Css3 and SVG in 
China  at present (see
http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/Guangzhou/SVGTop.html [1] )
 I have found (up close) several of these browser differences. (oh
my!)
 See, for example, http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/Guangzhou/video.htm [2]
(where  no two browsers among the five (O,F,I,C,S) respond remotely
similarly in  attempting to apply SVG effects to HTML5 (as, for
example, in video)
 ,
 (Sometimes I think Apple caused Pandora's box to open  with their
fear  of OGG, their disdain for SVG, their insistence on  and  their
insistence on Kommissariat Design Principles for HTML5 (KDPHs),  and
that the web is becoming more broken than fixed!)
 At any rate, I think that instead of thinking of "Presentation" vs 
"semantics" -- a distinction that makes sense when one is styling 
hypertext, one needs to, maybe instead, think of Things versus
Modifiers  when semantics is graphical, as in SVG.
 In SVG things that modify include clippaths, filters, masks,
gradients,  animations, replicates, transforms etc. Not all are
strictly  "presentational" since in the case of SVG, semantics IS
appearance.
 The Mozilla approach to this stuff as seen in the example at 
http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/Guangzhou/video2.htm [3] (though I seem to
have  my mime type screwed up on the server -- feel free to copy and
run  locally!) seems sensible to me:
 Why not allow full-fledged SVG semantics (albeit geometric) to be 
bundled into predicate nominative phrases that modify Things? It is a
 syntactic device that hundreds of human languages have used over 
millenia, so there is no reason to think it should not work now.
Trying  to reinvent wheels (ala ) might be a bit redundant, 
superfluous, nugatory and silly ¿que no?
 just some thoughts from here
 cheers
 David
 On Wed 05/23/12 12:00 AM , Cameron McCormack cam@mcc.id.au sent:
 I just mentioned in 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0830.html that

 implementations (unsurprisingly) differ in whether they accept
CSS-style 
 comments and escapes in presentation attributes.  In the spirit of 
 reducing the differences between values in presentation attributes
and 
 style sheet declarations (and remember that we have already agreed
to 
 remove the case sensitivity of them), what do people think about 
 allowing comments and escapes in presentation attributes?
 Once css3-syntax is a bit further fleshed out, we could invoke the 
 parser it defines, using flags that allow the slightly different SVG

 syntax that we still need (unitless lengths, scientific notation).


Links:
------
[1] http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/Guangzhou/SVGTop.html
[2] http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/Guangzhou/video.htm
[3] http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/Guangzhou/video2.htm
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 13:54:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:51 GMT