W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [Filter Effects] 'filter' property, SVG and filter functions

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:29:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBFCDtCXxCt0+ZioY+YjhyZN1BFsC3kJ8GChJ08vvX5QA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just some comments to the current filter specification.
>
> * The current version of the specification says:
>
> 5. The ‘filter’ property
>
> The description of the ‘filter’ property is as follows:
>
> ‘filter’
> Value:          none | <filter-function> [ <filter-function> ]*
> Initial:        none
> Applies to:     All elements In SVG 1.1 it applies only to "container elements (except ‘mask’) and graphics elements"
> Inherited:      no
> Percentages:    N/A
> Media:          visual
> Animatable:     yes
>
> The value <funciri> is missing that references an SVG 'filter' element (That is currently defined that way by SVG[1]). At the moment is listed as a <filter-function>. Does it mean that it is possible to combine shorthands and filter elements?
>
> filter: blur(20px) url(#filter-element);
>
> Don't we want to have backward compatibility and therefore list it separately, even if you want to combine them?

Yes, mixing them is possible.

Why would we want to list them separately?  More to the point, *how*
would we list them separately?  I guess I'm just unsure what you mean
by "separately", or how you think that would help with back-compat.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 22:30:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 April 2012 22:30:10 GMT