- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:32:49 +0100
- To: "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:05:16 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: >> On Jan 22, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> You can wrap a color in image() to transform it into an <image> value. >> >> I just wanted to point out that: >> >> background: url(“image.png”) red; >> >> means something different than: >> >> fill: url(“image.png”) red; >> >> In the first example the color is drawn, in the second it is just a >> fallback. >> >> This is unfortunate but can not be changed. > > Ah, gotcha. I'd forgotten about that unfortunate aspect of the grammar. > > ~TJ It would be interesting to have some stats on how much content would break if we were to change to the interpretation used in the background property. The example "fill: url(image.png) red" is unlikely to be found anywhere since that isn't going to render the image based on SVG 1.1. I'm wondering how much of a need there really is to have the fallback color in the first place, maybe this is something we should revisit? There might be a better alternative. Do the most common svg authoring tools typically provide the fallback color for fill/stroke? My guess is that they don't. -- Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 09:33:22 UTC