Re: [css-style-attr] SVG WG comments on CSS Styling Attributes Level 1

On 08/28/2010 05:27 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> * For good or ill, it's already allowed in CSS in SVG, so there's
> backwards-compatibility to consider

I don't recall this claim. I only remember it being allowed in SVG
attribute values, which is a different thing. Are you sure of this?

> How many hours of valuable time has this issue consumed, during the
> face-to-face, and via email? How much tension? Is either position really
> worth the effort and stress this has cost over the years? And how much
> time will it eat up in the future, when we could be talking about
> important or useful or cool things (I can think of a dozen off the top
> of my head, can't you)?

I don't think it ate up more than half an hour during this F2F, in a
briefly furious argument with very little after-effects. The email
threads seem longer.

> I think adding e-notation is the right thing to do. But, for the sake of
> moving on, I am going to propose that we take a serious look at dropping
> it, not only from CSS, but from SVG 2. For SVG, obviously, this would
> mean deprecating it rather than simply not including it.

I'm happy with the status quo, which, I believe, is that SVG allows
e-notation in its attribute values and CSS does not allow it in its
property values.

> What does everyone else think?

See above.

I understand the arguments for harmonizing number literal notation
across languages, but I also agree with Håkon's argument that e-notation,
especially with negative exponents and in a context where unit identifiers
and subtraction are natural, is confusing.


Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 17:07:53 UTC