Re: transform as a presentation attribute

Juergen Roethig:

>And if I read further in that "spec", I even see other passages which 
>make me freeze (13.2):
>> Therefore an author should write "transform="translate(200px, 200px)" 
>>instead of transform="translate (200 200)" because [...]

This seems to be left from a related CSS draft, clearly written by someone
not very familiar with SVG or best practice in SVG (use no units at all in 
content, only if required for width and height of the root SVG element).
Clearly this joke needs to be fixed within the SVG draft.
For the CSS property maybe not, but there should be still a hint, that
for the SVG attribute units are not required and should be avoided
to ensure backwards compatibility to older viewers. In SVG 1.x only
numbers are allowed ... ;o)

Most of this confusion appears due to a CSS draft about
transformations (applicable for other formats for decorative purposes), 
not completely compatible with current transformations in SVG.
Because is can be purely decorative to rotate a block element or an 
image in (X)HTML a little bit, the idea came up, that there are maybe 
decorative use cases for SVG as well, but no reason to
obfuscate the complete attribute in SVG 2.

As an author (of drafts as well), one should clearly identify:
If noted as (presentation) attribute, something is relevant
for content, if noted as property, it is purely decorative,
not relevant to understand the content.

Olaf

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:32:00 UTC