- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:29:13 -0700
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Olaf, On 06/08/2010 09:05 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > Well, if you want to use 'namespace' as typically used, > CSS has none at all Heh -- well, I wouldn't say I *want* to use the word "namespace" -- I was just using it because the spec uses it there. :) In the paragraph of SVG spec that I quoted, it looks like "namespace" is just being used as shorthand for "language", or "set of valid attributes/values", etc. Given your (valid) point about there being no literal CSS namespace, I think this generalized interpretation is the most reasonable reading of that chunk. But... > That units are optional or not allowed under some circumstances > is such an exception, explicitly mentioned in the SVG specifications. > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/types.html#DataTypeLength So after having reviewed that link, I think I concede on this issue -- types.html does indeed say (emphasis added): "The common data types for SVG's **properties** and attributes" ...and ... "The format of a <length> is a <number> **optionally** followed immediately by a unit identifier." FWIW, I'd read that <length> chunk before, but I only just now noticed the explicit mention of "properties" in the header text above the data types. (So 'til now, I'd thought that the unitless-values-allowed rule applied only to attributes, and that the CSS spec had the final say over what a valid CSS <length> value is, even in SVG.) So, given the explicit mention of [CSS] "properties" above the allowance for unitless <length> values, I retract my objection to animate-elem-46-t.svg. Thanks for the discussion, ~Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 17:30:18 UTC