Re: "Pointer-events and fallback values" erratum

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:34:58 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> The “Pointer-events and fallback values” erratum changes the definitions
> of the ‘visiblePainted’ and ‘painted’ keywords to talk about whether the
> actual value of the relevant fill or stroke property is ‘none’ or not.
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.html#pointer-events-fallback-values
>
> Presumably “actual value” here refers to the CSS definition of the term:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/cascade.html#actual-value
>
> However, I don’t see anything in the CSS spec (or the SVG spec) that
> defines that the actual value of the ‘fill’ and ‘stroke’ properties is
> ‘none’ if the URL wasn’t appropriate. If I’m mistaken, could somebody
> point out where this is defined?  Otherwise, I suggest to reword the
> text to talk explicitly about whether fallback resulted in the URL being
> ignored.

 From http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/painting.html#SpecifyingPaint :
[[
If the URI reference is not valid (e.g., it points to an object that doesn't exist or the object is not a valid paint server), then the paint method following the <uri> (i.e., none | currentColor | <color> [icc-color(<name>[,<icccolorvalue>]*)]| inherit) is used if provided; otherwise, the document is in error (see Error processing).
]]

Whether that corresponds to the computed value (or actual value) or not, well...not really I think. At least not if the computed value is the whole paint definition including fallbacks. It's one step beyond computed value, maybe coin a new term "applied value"?

One problem might be that you'd need to resolve the url before knowing if the fallback was the applied value, which could be expensive.

Cheers
/Erik

-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 08:19:43 UTC