- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:19:39 +0200
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 11 May 2009 04:01:40 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Discussing the CSS ‘content’ property recently, and how a corresponding > presentation attribute may conflict with the RDFa-ish content="" > attribute introduced in SVG Tiny 1.2, made me wonder what our strategy > is for presentation attributes. > > Is it our intention to introduce a presentation attribute for every CSS > property that SVG specifications define? We don't have presentation attributes for CSS shorthand properties, e.g 'marker' and 'font'. > Is it our intention to introduce a presentation attribute for every CSS > property that CSS specifications define, for which SVG defines > particular behaviour when that property is applied to an SVG element? Well, in light of the 'content' property we could think about defining particular behaviour for when it's set to e.g "url(foo.png)" or what happens when text is generated. Placement is one obvious thing that would need to be addressed then, since SVG doesn't layout the content automatically. > What do we do when a presentation attribute we want to introduce > conflicts with an attribute we already have? Is it acceptable to have a > presentation attribute with a name different from the property? The question for 'content' is whether it makes sense to make a markup equivalent (presentation attribute), since generated content is particularly concerned about generating content outside of the document tree (in the stylesheet). -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 09:20:37 UTC