Re: CSS WG comments on SVG 1.2

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> Reading this, I come to the conclusion that mark-up specific CSS 
> properties are a problem, CSS should only apply to all mark-up languages 
> or none?  and no naming strategy will solve this?

Markup-specific properties are possible, but I certainly wouldn't 
encourage them. They have a high cost to implement, as I noted. (They have 
to be parsed and cascadable for every element even if no elements of their 
namespace are used.)

> > Personally, for many of the above properties I think that would be 
> > much better. For example, the 'focusable' property doesn't seem like 
> > something you'd want to change from a stylesheet.
> I agree, not having these as CSS properties would be an excellent idea. 
> Unfortunately there is then a consistency problem with some properties as 
> both properties and some as CSS, how would you suggest resolving this? As I 
> do not think that is appropriate.

SVG already has the distinction between attributes that are cascaded 
properties ('fill') and those that are not ('x'). I don't see the problem.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 20:11:53 UTC