W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: [css-style-attr] SVG WG comments on CSS Styling Attributes Level 1

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:13:21 +0200
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <fkrd86dsk6iaq5nek683pffuthv3stdems@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>This is from a previous version of the spec though. Where is the 
>equivalent in the current draft ?

None of the SVG Recommendations modify the text/css media type in a way
that makes using scientific notation conforming in such resources. As I
understand it http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-SVG11-20100622/ is the latest
relevant draft, but that to me is a proposal and has no influence on the
question whether scientific notation was ever allowed in text/css style

>I am trying to figure out whether SVG explicitly or implicitly allows the 
>e notation in stylesheets or in the style attribute. Thus far it seems 
>that's not the case, at the cost of obvious discontinuities for authors,
>tools and UAs alike since attribute values support it.

As far as text/css resources go, which indirectly includes the style
attribute in SVG documents, this has never been defined as conforming
in a W3C Recommendation (as noted, presentation attributes, the DOM and
SMIL complicate matters a bit, but as far as writing something like
"opacity: 1e0" is concerned, that has never been allowed).
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 02:13:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC