W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Summary of discussion about FX work items

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:20:11 +1200
To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Cc: SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110623002011.GC3098@wok.mcc.id.au>
Here are some comments from my perspective on the remaining
specifications.

Filter Effects: it seems like everyone is happy for that to continue
being a joint deliverable.

Compositing: looks like we have editors for this (Alex and/or Rik).  It
seems like an easy thing to want to apply to CSS boxes.  Is there a
desire from people in this group to expand the scope of the document and
do it in FXTF?  I think it Filters is in FX, then Compositing should be
too.

Gradients: I think Tab is doing something with the CSS Image Values
spec.  I think it would be OK to continue along that track and not have
a separate SVG or FX Gradients specification.  If it doesn’t already,
CSS Image Values should be able to reference SVG paint servers, for
cases where the built-in syntaxes are insufficient.

Parameters: I’d like to hear from Doug about how this might be
generalised so that it could be an FX deliverable.  (That is, can this
be done, should it be done?  Or would it be applicable already?)  The
answer to this should help us decide whether it’s appropriate to move
into the FXTF.  Has there been discussion of this spec on public-fx or
in the CSS WG?

Content Layout: I think if we do experiment with making CSS layout
models work with SVG content, then it would be OK to have this in a
separate specification.  How flex box (for example) applies to CSS boxes
and how it applies to SVG content is likely going to be somewhat
different, although there will be shared fundamentals like how the flex
computations are done.  So I feel like an SVG spec that references the
appropriate CSS layout spec would be sufficient.

Advanced Text Layout: I’d like to hear Vincent’s opinion here.

Shared properties (object-fit): I don’t see much value in moving the
specification or bringing SVG-specific functionality into it.  I think
it would be fine to just define in SVG 2.0 exactly how object-fit
applies to SVG content.  (Perhaps CSS Image Values could include an
informative sentence stating that.)


I’d like to know whether other WG members agree with the above
assessments or not.

Thanks,

Cameron

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 00:20:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 June 2011 00:20:46 GMT