- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:20:37 +1300
- To: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-fx@w3.org, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
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: http://people.mozilla.org/~cmccormack/svg-properties.html 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 ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 22:21:26 UTC