- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:00:30 +0100
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: Anthony Grasso <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Friday, March 25, 2011, 10:51:57 PM, Robert wrote: ROC> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Anthony Grasso ROC> <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au> wrote: ROC> ROC> ROC> ROC> I remember from past discussions in the FX Group that the ROC> “transform” attribute and “transform” property behave ROC> differently. At least for “transform-origin” it’s currently ROC> defined that way [1] . We originally decided that the CSS ROC> property will override the SVG attribute (which is how it works with current SVG I think). ROC> Have you got a reference to those discussions? It's not clear to ROC> me what "CSS property overrides the SVG attribute" would actually ROC> mean. Does it mean something different from the way ROC> presentational attributes normally map into CSS? It means exactly that. A presentation attribute has a specificity of zero, so if the property is set by any style rule, that rule will have higher specificity. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 21:00:47 UTC