- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:01:16 +0100
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Saturday, February 10, 2007, 3:11:34 PM, Dr. Olaf wrote: DOH> The other benefit for the author is, that it is immediately DOH> possible to check, what is really content and what decoration - DOH> if the 'No Style' choose is not really usable, it might be better DOH> to use XML presentation attributes as CSS properties ;o) The presentation attributes *are* used as CSS properties. DOH> A bigger problem is animation of the CSS attributeType. Because these DOH> elements are always inside the document and cannot be replaced by the DOH> user, this will result in complicated situations with specifity. No, the animation is not affected by whatever rules in the cascade were used to produce the static value. DOH> And because the default is auto, this means CSS if possible, we DOH> get in complicated situations with animation and CSS, too. Again DOH> authors have in most cases the choice to specify the DOH> attributeType XML This leads me to suspect that you misunderstand the use of attributeType. It only is of use where there is both a CSS property (not expressed as a presentation attribute) and an SVG attribute (which is not a presentation attribute) on the same element. The canonical example is the CSS width and height properties, which might be animated on an svg element that also has width and height attributes. Its then necessary to resolve the ambiguity. DOH> to simplify to overwrite DOH> animations with (static!) CSS with a user style. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 14:01:43 UTC