- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:11:50 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
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
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 20:11:53 UTC