Re: Ambiguities in fill:url() / stroke:url() syntax

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> In that case, as long as we're *able* to head off SVG Stacks at the
>> pass, I'm cool with your alternate approach, suitably expanded to
>> disallow all things that *look* like MFs in step a (that is,
>> everything with an ident followed by an = sign).
>
> Can we simplify it to just exclude =, ( and ) characters from external
> resource references? That also excludes functional syntax like SVG 1.1
> cooked up for svgView(). It also gives SVG Stacks users a workaround: use
> identifiers such as "=bar" in their images.

Sounds good.

> How will we know if we're "able to head off SVG Stacks"? I'm not entirely
> comfortable with just disabling them in Firefox without a commitment from
> other browser vendors to do the same.

If you're willing to suicide-pact with me, I'll do my best.  Can't
make any commits until next week when I get back from TPAC.

>> > By the way, if someone created an document foo.svg with a paint server
>> > element whose ID is "xywh=0,0,10,10", how would your magical approach
>> > treat
>> > url(foo.svg#xywh=0,0,10,10)? :-)
>>
>> I think SVG agreed recently (dunno if it's made it into the SVG2
>> draft) that we'll restrict the syntax of fragment identifiers to
>> disallow all MF-looking things from referring to elements.
>
> I didn't know that. I don't see anything about it in the SVG2 draft. That is
> important since it could interact with what we're trying to do here.

I'll verify what I think I'm remembering.

~TJ

Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 21:45:41 UTC