Re: New SVG WG Charter

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 

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.


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