- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:39:54 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > Maybe I can find some working that it would be required for CSS Transforms used with SVG, but is optional for other cases. Would this change help? s/working/wording/ > > Greetings, > Dirk > > On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:43 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> On Wednesday 2012-02-15 12:27 -0800, Dirk Schulze wrote: >>> I tried to describe the benefits for CSS[2] but more necessary the >>> requirements for SVG [3]. This is the last blocking issue for >>> compliance between CSS Transforms and SVG Transforms for >>> transformation functions. That is the reason why I think it is >>> necessary to leave it in. Like I wrote before, it doesn't break >>> existing content. These are just two more optional arguments, and >>> it is easy to implement. It is already done for the SVG >>> implementation on all browser anyway. So SVG authors would expect >>> that it works on CSS as well, beside that if it is not supported >>> we would break existing SVG content. And for SVG a rotate with >>> three arguments is used a lot! >> >> My main concern here is that adding additional requirements on >> implementations might add additional barriers to unprefixing. >> >> In particular, the working group this morning did not achieve >> consensus on the idea that we might make any exceptions to the rules >> on dropping prefixes. This means that we have to follow the rules >> stated in http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-css-2010-20110512/#testing >> (that's the current version of http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#testing ): >> >> # To establish and maintain the interoperability of CSS across >> # implementations, the CSS Working Group requests that >> # non-experimental CSS renderers submit an implementation report >> # (and, if necessary, the testcases used for that implementation >> # report) to the W3C before releasing an unprefixed implementation >> # of any CSS features. Testcases submitted to W3C are subject to >> # review and correction by the CSS Working Group. >> >> While this doesn't explicitly say anything about whether the >> implementation is required to *pass* the tests per that >> implementation report, I suspect it might be interpreted that way. >> (It's a new requirement since the last unprefixing has happened.) >> >> So from a spec advancement perspective I'd be ok with this change >> only if either (1) the spec explicitly says that implementations are >> not required to support the additional 2 arguments in order to >> unprefix their implementations of the transform property (though >> they'd still be required to do so to fully conform to the >> specification) or (2) /TR/CSS/ is clarified in such a way that this >> isn't an issue. >> >> >> That said, I also find the additional parameters confusing, but I >> suppose if SVG has them we're probably stuck with them, and I don't >> plan to object on those grounds since I'm not particularly an expert >> in the area. (I'd note, however, that they're not at all analogous >> to the extra parameters to rotate3d(), which describe what axis to >> rotate about, not where the center of the rotation is.) >> >> -David >> >> -- >> 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 >> 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 >
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:40:37 UTC