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

Re: Updated Summary of Discussions about FX work items

From: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:24:58 +1000
Message-Id: <MDMMNL.Q7FNCFB74IRG@abbra.com>
To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Cc: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Hi Vincent and all,

--Original Message--:
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>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 that this is desirable.

However,  there's been a large thread on www-style that I've stayed away from that
relates to the angles used for CSS gradients.

CSS3 gradients is specifying 0 degrees to be vertical, i'e. poiting up along the Y axis.
Their rationale is that it's like a compass.

SVG uses the X-axis as 0 degrees, like in maths, architectural drawing and many other
things.

The angle concept in CSS gradients is incompatible with SVG's model so perhaps someone
who is in both domains can point this out to them.

Cheers,
Alex

>>>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 23:26:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 June 2011 23:26:08 GMT