- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:31:51 -0700
- To: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-fx@w3.org, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > 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. There hasn't been a ton of discussion on the CSS list, but then I've been on vacation for a week and haven't had a chance to poke at it. In any case, it seems like the promotion of attributes to properties is vaguely okay. > 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. The CSSWG, insofar as we support this effort, is against doing the "svg-foo" thing. We'd prefer custom names, like what Cameron has put forth. >> >>> 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? I don't understand the implications of this, but I don't have an opinion on it either. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 22:32:43 UTC