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

Re: Updated Summary of Discussions about FX work items

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:51:15 -0700
To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA31E945.A931%vhardy@adobe.com>


[...]

I believe there are some easy guidelines (anything to do with
layout isn't useful for SVG), but, for example, how much of the Image
Values spec is useful?

For the Image Values spec I'd assume that people would like to be able to
use css gradient syntax in svg wherever you can use an SVG paintserver.
I'd imagine that the element() syntax would be nice to have there too.
Object-fit/object-position would be nice for images in svg (and probably
anything else that establishes a viewport in svg).

>> I agree. I think we should strive to make the rendering model as consistent as possible between SVG and HTML elements.

Vincent
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 15:51:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 June 2011 15:51:54 GMT