W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2016

Re: New SVG WG Charter

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>
Message-ID: <51b4ba95-7618-9533-cc6b-a9e5f5a778bd@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:06 UTC