- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:27:32 -0700
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, public-fx@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Since we're omitting the <filter>-related attributes due to CSS >> Filters, perhaps we could omit the gradient-related attributes due to >> CSS Gradients? CSS and SVG gradients have a trivial mapping, albeit >> not one that can be expressed directly in CSS. > > We already have stop-opacity and stop-color properties for SVG gradients. > > My main concern about omitting properties is that it won't make any sense > for authors. Also, if one engine breaks ranks and implements them, all the > others will want to too. I'm not sure if we can, or should, attempt to hold > a line here. Okay. (I wonder why stop-opacity and stop-color were defined as presentational attributes, but not the rest of the equally-presentational gradient attributes? It feels very arbitrary.) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:28:24 UTC