W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: CSS Animations Targeting SVG attributes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:46:28 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=c6O1wEbNKnH_nmUKdYB7ERN3gnVLLrhY5V9-C@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Grasso <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Anthony Grasso
<Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr wrote:
>> Since we're omitting the <filter>-related attributes due to CSS
>> Filters, perhaps we could omit the gradient-related attributes due to
>> CSS Gradients?  CSS and SVG gradients have a trivial mapping, albeit
>> not one that can be expressed directly in CSS.
> Gradient-related Properties are still in the list - which is fine.
> For the following properties "linearGradient" should be added to the element list:
> x1, x2, y1 and y2
> For the following properties "radialGradient" should be added to the element list:
> cx, cy and r

Again, wherever there were multiple instances of an attribute in the
attribute index that all did the same thing, I just deleted all but
one.  I didn't fold the deleted elements into the remaining entry.

>> Taking these suggestions would let us introduce less than 20 new
>> properties, total.
> Given that you're pretty keen to map attributes to properties, do you intend on presenting both options (1. Mapping attributes, 2. Targeting attributes with attr())to the CSS Working Group?

Yes, I just sent an email to the CSSWG a few minutes ago outlining all
of the proposed options.  I also repeated my own strong objection to
the attr() proposal. ^_^

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:49:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:38 UTC