W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Updated filters specification

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:50:11 +1000
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-fx@w3.org, Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
Message-id: <69C00EB2-902C-4C7F-8A9A-B38C4BC305B4@apple.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
What does this mean for existing content that uses 'enable-background'? I doubt there is much of it, but still, there are a couple of existing recommendations that define it. Typically things get deprecated before being removed.

Dean

On 22/04/2011, at 1:59 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:

> I guess this means that section 7 can be completely removed.
> 
> Rik
> 
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 20.04.2011 um 09:41 schrieb Erik Dahlstrom:
> 
> > As much as I like having backwards compatibility with SVG 1.1 this is one of the things I'm happy to drop from the spec. The reason for that is that few implementations support enable-background anyway, and there's very little content that depends on it. And as you said, it's possible to find workarounds. For example one can use feImage to pull in some subtree as the filter input image.
> >
> > Any objections to dropping 'enable-background' from the filters spec?
> 
> I definitely support dropping 'enable-background' from Filter!
> 
> Me too!
> 
> Rob
> -- 
> "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 00:50:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 April 2011 00:50:45 GMT