- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:54:17 -0400
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:20 +1000, Peter Moulder wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:24:04PM +1000, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > Bjoern Hoehrmann: > > > >And as far as I can tell from a brief look at "current" specifications, > > > fill="url(o\000308)" > > > background-image: url(o\000308); > > > > > >refer to different resources [because \000308 in the latter involves CSS > > >escape interpretation, whereas the former is a literal string: XML uses & > > >escapes, and assigns no special meaning to backslashes in attribute strings]. XML does not forbid an application from interpreting \ in attribute values. There's no a priori reason to treat these two values differently that I can see, although fill="url(ö);" would presumably only work in the XML version (for some definition of "work" since the escape is handled by the XML parser and the value is expanded before the SVG/CSS parser gets to see it). Liam > (Given the context of the o\000308 example, I'm taking "CSS syntax" to mean CSS > lexing. I believe that SVG uses already shares the same grammar with CSS and > XSL for properties like font-family, and that it currently shares lexical > definitions with XSL rather than CSS.) Note that XSL allows expressions in values, without the need for calc(), so the grammar is different. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 05:55:03 UTC