Re: [svg2] request for review of new SVG properties

On Wednesday 2012-09-12 15:14 +0200, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Hello CSS Working Group,
> 
> The SVG WG recently published an FPWD of SVG 2:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/
> 
> and the document adds a few new CSS properties.  We'd like to get
> the CSS WG's review of these new properties at this early stage
> (before implementation work begins).

A few personal comments follow:

> These are the new properties we'd like review of:
> 
> marker-segment
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/painting.html#MarkerSegmentProperty

I'm not crazy about the name marker-segment, but I can't think of
anything better.

(I don't like it because marker-start, marker-mid, and marker-end
are the marker at/for the start/mid/end.  It almost feels like
marker-each-segment fits that pattern better, except it's a horrible
name.)

> marker-pattern
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/painting.html#MarkerPatternProperty

Is it really the intent to allow 'none' to be interleaved, or should
the syntax be:
  none | [ <length> | <percentage> | <funcuri> ]+
?  I think that would make more sense.

The spec should also explain that the sequence of <length>,
<percentage>, and <funciri> values defines a sequence used along the
path; right now it only says that by way of examples.

> paint-order
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/painting.html#PaintOrderProperty

I'm *really* queasy about the name here, particularly since we
already have a z-index property, and this is actually SVG-specific
though it doesn't necessarily have to be (if it had more values).
That said, I suspect the use case is a good bit stronger for SVG
than for non-SVG.

> And these properties have had their values extended:
> 
> marker (shorthand)
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/painting.html#MarkerShorthand

I find the grammar here quite confusing.  And the "anything else"
part at the end makes it even more confusing.

I think it would be more consistent with other CSS properties (e.g.,
the background-size part of the background shorthand) if the final
part of the production didn't exist, and specifying a non-'none'
marker-pattern using the marker shorthand required a '/' (in the
simple case, as "none / <'marker-pattern'>".

> mask
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/masking.html#MaskProperty

I wonder whether it would be better to allow the
  luminance | alpha | auto
to come on either side of the <mask-source>.  That could be written
as:
  [ <mask-source> && [ luminance | alpha | auto ]? ] | none
using the && notation introduced in CSS 2.1.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 20:21:06 UTC