- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Cc: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, Antoine Quint <ml@graougraou.com>, www-svg@w3.org
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Peter Sorotokin wrote: > > > > > > So would prefixing the majority of the CSS properties with "html-". > > > Half :) > > > > There's nothing HTML-specific about CSS propertes. > > To be more precise, there is something box-model specific. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Dec/0001.html True, we could prefix the background-related properties with 'background', the font-related properties with 'font', the border-related properties with 'border', the list-related properties with 'list'... Oh wait... ;-) However, my concern is that SVG 1.2's proposed names are actually harming this property separation, in fact. For example, it introduces the 'background-fill' property despite that property having nothing to do with any of the other 'background-*' properties. It introduces one-word properties that only apply to specific models (one-word properties in CSS usually apply to multiple models). And so forth. So I don't buy the argument that there is a parallel between prefixing the SVG properties with 'svg-' and prefixing the box-model properties with 'box-'. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 21:57:51 UTC