- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:16:57 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > marker-pattern's grammar is wrong - you want "none | [ <length> | > <percentage> | <marker> ]+". > > The grammar is kinda weird, as written. Normally, I'd write this as: > "none | [ [<length> | <percentage>] <marker> ]#" - a comma separated > list of gap+marker pairs. This also happens to match the way that > color-stop lists are written in gradients, which is nice. Is there a > strong reason to keep the current model? > > The rest are fine, but I hate the use of the <funciri> terminology. > It's completely opaque to the author. Just use the CSS <url> > production - it's the exact same thing. (This applies throughout > SVG.) And again, they are not the same! At least as long as CSS does not clarify that the behavior is the same. The one is taking IRI[1], the other URI[2]. This was discussed previously on masking[3] and on a discussion from Cameron[4] without conclusion. And it does not matter how often your repeat it, they differ from the spec point of view. I would be glade if CSS can specify that url() takes URI and IRI. Greetings, Dirk [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/linking.html#IRIReference [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/syndata.html#uri [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0782.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0772.html > > ~TJ >
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 04:17:30 UTC