- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:16:10 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On 12/17/2013 03:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: >> So I think it's a choice between 'view-box' and 'viewbox' and since it is >> possible to use 'viewbox' as the attribute name in some contexts I think it >> is preferable. One reason to possibly prefer "view-box" instead of "viewbox": Properties are generally exposed in the CSSOM (in element.style and in getComputedStyle) by converting hyphenation to camelCase.[1] So, if we went with "view-box" as the property-name, we'd end up exposing "element.style.viewBox" (and getComputedStyle(...).viewBox) to the DOM, which would be nicely consistent with the existing camelCase "viewBox" usages. (e.g. svgElem.viewBox, from interface SVGFitToViewBox ) In contrast, if the property were named "viewbox", it'd be exposed via the CSSOM as "viewbox" (*not* viewBox). > It would likely be just fine for CSS to have a property named > "viewbox" (which SVG-comfortable authors could write as "viewBox" if > they chose). While it's true that authors could write viewbox as "viewBox" in CSS, they'd still have to use the correct capitalization when accessing the CSSOM, which would be confusing. ~Daniel [1] see mentions of camel-case at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/types.html#InterfaceSVGFitToViewBox
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 19:16:39 UTC