Re: Summary of discussion about FX work items

• From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
• Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:32:51 -0700
• To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>, SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <BANLkTimYxeGG=ygCOsv_tfGet=OT8jJv-aJynpjaLFWv1coJdQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> 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.

Yup, I have a plan for making paint servers usable as CSS <image>s,
and conversely for making CSS <image>s usable as SVG paint servers,
based on experimental work by roc.  Merging the two into a single
cross-language concept is surprisingly easy, and makes me happy.

I'm happy for the first part to live in the CSS Image Values spec, but
I'm not sure where to put the second part.  It seems like SVG would be
a better place to define it.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 01:33:46 UTC