- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:25:17 +1100
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Doug Schepers: > It's something to consider... I'm not going to jump to the conclusion > that renaming the 'filter' property is the right solution, since that > might be a bit drastic for legacy content, viewers, and authoring tools. I don’t think that renaming 'filter' is necessarily the right solution, either. (I haven’t really looked into the issue so I don’t have an opinion yet.) > Moreover, it's not clear that renaming 'filter' will, at this point, > solve anything... there will still be legacy SVG content out there, just > as there is (legacy?) IE-filter content out there. A UA which wishes to > account for both will have to implement accordingly. > > I don't know how common the IE-filter content is, nor whether it's still > being used in modern content. Maybe Hixie (or another Googler) could do > a survey using Google's database. I think it is somewhat common, for people wanting to do drop shadow effects and opacity and that kind of thing in IE. > We should look at exactly how IE-filter is being used, and see if > we can come up with an effective hack that allows both to exist in > harmony. Yes. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 01:26:07 UTC