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

Re: [css-masking] 'mask' with resource and image references (was: [css4-images] support for SVG Paint Servers without element())

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:40:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC_DT8YiQr=a30WryRYuvKxPTHJeZEehnusFRGMNFWDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> Well, even if I am saying the same like above again. The WebKit CSS parser does not check for fragments and definitely does not follow a different processing path depending on the fragment. And even with the support for Media fragments (which would just preserve the fragments that WebKit ignores right now), this won't change. The linked file is interpreted as CSS image and not as SVG resource. The WebKit parser can not differ between different file resource at this parsing stage at the moment. The model is still compatible with the simplified proposal so far. WebKit just can't differ between SVG resource and CSS Image on the same property. It needs to be one of both. And for 'mask-image' it would be a CSS Image.

You keep citing WebKit's current implementation as if it can never
change.  Why?  Is there some technical difficulty, or do you think
there is a compat problem?

The ENTIRE POINT of this whole discussion was to find a behavior we
could settle on that would let us discriminate between resources and
images at parse time.  You didn't object to this at any point, and
explicitly supported the latest proposal.  Why are you objecting to
this now?  Why didn't you object earlier?  What, precisely, is the
problem, and why didn't you think it was a problem earlier?

You're confusing the hell out of me.  ^_^

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 00:41:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT