W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-images] paint sources

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 01:44:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCms5fKRiBnbfX1fWQusjKpBTwBK+zfkG1XM7oLy2sHEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> skreiv Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:14:31 +0100
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:31 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#element-reference
>>> (Overview.html revision 1.269) says the following:
>>>
>>>  # Host languages may define that some elements provide a paint
>>>  # source. Paint sources have an intrinsic width, height, and
>>>  # appearance, separate from the process of rendering, and so may
>>>  # be used as images even when they're not being rendered. Examples
>>>  # of elements that provide paint sources are the <linearGradient>,
>>>  # <radialGradient>, and <pattern> elements in SVG, or the <img>,
>>>  # <video>, and <canvas> elements in HTML.
>>>
>>> Given that the SVG and HTML specifications don't currently define
>>> that these elements provide a paint source, I think *this*
>>> specification should define that they provide a paint source, and
>>> define how they do.  It can still allow other languages to add
>>> defintions, and future levels of HTML and SVG to revise theirs.
>>
>>
>> HTML defines that <img>, <video>, and <canvas> provide paint sources
>> (go to the section for each element, and search for "paint source").
>
>
> Note that only the WHATWG version of HTML5 talks about paint sources. I
> don't know whether this is a problem.

It's only a problem insofar as I should link specifically to the
WHATWG spec.  Done.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 09:45:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT