Re: How to add properties to the CSS syntax (Was: several messages)

Hi Ian,

On Oct 19, 2005, at 18:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> To the best of my knowledge this specific issue was never raised,
>> despite at least three formal reviews of the SVG specification by the
>> CSS WG.
>>
>
> It has been raised as LC comments for SVG 1.0, SVG 1.2 Full, and  
> SVG 1.2
> Tiny (second LC).
>
> The earliest reference to it that I can find is from April 1999:
>
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/1999Apr/0028

This seems to be the unit-less font issue. I agree that it's been  
raised a thousand times, and since I wasn't on the WG back then I  
don't know why it wasn't addressed. Again, sorry for being unclear  
but I was talking about the issue that CSS properties defined in SVG  
now cannot appear in text/css documents. I've found issues raised by  
the CSS WG concerning "dangerously generic names" (a number of which  
at least have been addressed) but nothing saying that SVG shouldn't  
be adding properties at all (though I could have missed them).

> Right. Well, the same applies to the CSSWG. With the XSL WG, we  
> have this
> coordination -- for example, the XSLWG has a fulltime member of the  
> CSSWG
> who comes to our meetings and everything. CDF too, and indeeed CDF  
> has had
> its additions to the CSS specs recently, we even had entire shared
> WG-to-WG joint meetings at plenaries where we discussed exact text.

Yes, I know it would be helpful, the problem is finding someone to do  
it. I would, but I can't invent time. Unfortunately, both the CSS and  
SVG WGs are resource-constrained and this doesn't help much.

> The SVG WG would, I'm sure, be welcome to work with the CSS WG to  
> develop
> a CSS3 Module that introduces SVG's properties to the CSS syntax in a
> manner consistent with the rest of CSS, just like the XSL and CDF (and
> even Math) working groups have been working with us. I imagine this  
> would
> require someone from SVG to attend our meetings and edit a  
> specification.

Good to hear. It needs some editing work and checking, but how about  
something like the attached? Please keep in mind that this is just a  
draft produced by yours truly and represent in no way the opinions of  
any WG or in fact of any other person in a WG save myself. In some  
cases, it may not even really represent my own opinion but rather an  
attempt to JFDI and clear up this mess ;)

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/