Re: Some practical issues integrating the SVG transform attribute with CSS transform properties

Patrick Dengler:
> Is everyone on board for using the promotion of SVG Attributes to
> properties as opposed to using the attr() notation? And, have we
> landed on using -svg-r notation?

I don’t know if everyone is on board yet, but so far it seems to have
had the least pushback.  Tab mailed the CSS WG; I wonder if they have
discussed it in the group yet.

The -svg-r notation I’m not fond of.  It’s not pleasing to the eye,
and if any of these properties are to be extended to apply to non-SVG
elements in the future, the name will be a hindrance.

I said I was going to write up a summary of attribute promotion like
Tab’s one, but considering all of the animatable attributes in SVG.
Here is is:

Some things are similar to Tab’s analysis, others different.  Please
don’t pay too much attention to the names, since I cringe at some of
those I’ve chosen, and I am sure others will be able to come up with
better ones.  I also don’t mention property value syntax, but I don’t
think that’s going to be a problem.

> >>> Another option is to deprecate SVGAnimatedTransformList and
> point people to CSSOM, or whatever way there is in CSS to get the
> (animated or not) transform value as a higher level object (CSSMatrix
> or equivalent, not DOMString).
> What we have been considering here is that if it is set with the
> SVGAttribute, it is is stored in the SVG OM; if it is set with CSS it
> is stored in the CSS OM.

So that’s agreeing with 2 and choosing 3a from Rob’s initial mail?

Cameron McCormack ≝

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 22:21:26 UTC