- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:25:23 -0400
- To: Domenico Strazzullo <strazzullo.domenico@gmail.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, Domenico– I've revised the charter to say: [[ A set of styling characteristics, expressible as presentation attributes or CSS properties, for defining the appearance and behavior of graphical elements. ]] It's an accurate statement which doesn't give priority to any specific serialization, and focuses only on the functional aspects. I hope that address your concern. Regards– Doug On 10/17/16 1:22 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: > On 10/17/16 12:06 PM, Domenico Strazzullo wrote: … >> About the list of constituents in the Scope section of the charter draft. >> >> Third item regarding the style properties. The capability of expressing >> presentation attributes through the style attribute has always been a >> grammatical feature, its official purpose being that of offering a >> syntax alternative as an incentive. The question of compatibility with >> CSS remains dependent of the fact that a given attribute is or is not in >> the SVG grammar. If and when a new presentation attribute needs to be >> created, it remains implied that it can be expressed through the style >> attribute, since that is a prerogative. What really counts then is >> whether the parser identifies an attribute as pertinent or not, not >> whether an attribute, in its essence, is compatible with CSS. Similarly, >> if a new SVG-specific presentation attribute is needed and implemented, >> the parser will validate it whether expressed as style property or >> presentation attribute. I hope everyone agrees that the dual expression >> capability is only formal. It is not the parser that checks for >> consistency with CSS; that condition is necessarily a prerequisite set >> by the governing body upstream. We then have three distinct cases: >> >> >> 1) The new SVG-specific attribute feature is not compatible in its >> essence with CSS (as relating to some HTML element). Result: it will >> live with its non-compatibility with CSS, while it can still be >> expressed through the style attribute, because it’s a grammar >> prerequisite, and because either way the parser will formally validate >> it. >> >> 2) The new SVG-specific attribute feature is compatible in its essence >> with CSS. Result: it can be ported to CSS at discretion by the CSS WG. >> The SVG WG can consult other groups about the naming of the attribute >> (not an issue). >> >> 3) Some CSS specific property needs to be ported to SVG. Result: just do >> it. The name may need to be accommodated to be expressed as presentation >> attribute (hyphen vs camelCase or whatever). >> >> Finally on this subject, I contest the wording. It should read: “A set >> of presentation attributes, compatible with CSS, and expressible as >> style properties, …” even though under the hood the parser may check for >> style first. >> >> But this is already detailed in the specification, and therefore should >> have no place in the charter’s scope. Apart from the redundancy, it >> suggests some need to make a case, still. > > If you have a concrete suggestion for revised wording in the charter, > I'm open to it. A WG charter isn't meant to be interpreted with legal > precision (except for the case of scoping of Intellectual Property > contributions); it's only suggestive of what the group intends to work > on, and the WG ultimately decides what it will do and how it will do it.
Received on Monday, 17 October 2016 21:25:27 UTC