- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:46:28 -0700
- 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. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:49:27 UTC