On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > On 2/08/11 4:16 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> I don't really see the point of having CSS associated with a standalone >> SVG file. It makes much more sense to do CSS if the SVG is inlined in >> your HTML. >> Maybe the spec should be broken into these 2 use cases: >> - stand-alone SVG files always use attributes. >> - inline SVG always uses CSS styling >> > > I don't think we want to do away with the <style> element in standalone > SVG. I find it useful, at least. > > > I think this will solve several issues. For instance, the problem on how >> to integrate CSS transforms would go away. >> > > Well, you would still need to define what <g style="transform: ..."> does. > Unless you wanted to drop the style="" attribute too. > >From stand-alone SVG? I would say yes unless a lot of people already rely on this. > > I think dropping <style> from SVG makes as much sense as dropping it from > HTML. > > > Also, it will not break backward compatibility since there is very >> little content out that is using this. >> >> My proposal would make standalone SVG static since CSS animations won't >> work. >> I don't know how much of an issue that would be. (CSS animated SVG >> loaded through the <img> tag will not likely support animation anyway.) >> > > I would hope CSS Animations would work in this situation. > I agree that it would be nice. I believe that none of the current browsers support SMIL if the SVG is loaded through an <IMG> tag. RikReceived on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 04:46:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:38 UTC