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

Re: [css3-images] Defining SVG paint servers as a CSS <image>

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:56:35 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=iHEecss-iTgok3NdJpB6qeK84cQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: public-fx@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would even be better if there was a way that you could refer to a SVG
> > symbol instead of a paint server.
> > We're working on converting Flash content to HTML+SVG and if the
> animation
> > is complex, we create many external SVG files.
> > The size of the SVG files is not a problem but having to do a http
> request
> > for each one causes a lot of overhead.
> > If we could refer to symbols, we could put all our content in 1 external
> > file which is much more efficient...
>
> That's theoretically doable by just targetting <svg> subelements
> directly, right?
>

Correct but it requires JavaScript to make it work.


>
> Alternately, it might be doable by a suitable interpretation of
> <pattern>.  By default, I'd treat a <pattern> as an infinite image
> constructed from positioning and tiling the contents.  Alternately, we
> could treat <pattern> as just its contents, and leave the tiling part
> to CSS.  That would be a bit more magical than I probably want to
> worry about, though.


Yes, using patterns feels more like a hack.
I agree that for your proposal, patterns should either not tile or be
excluded as a paint server.

Rik
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 20:57:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 June 2011 20:57:13 GMT