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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:57:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBHKtiNG1ZbRaAuXM95VFhBCjhF82UC0T6aSXqy1c0fwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> Another proposal came from Stephen Zilles during the CSS F2F meeting today. I want to list it beside the different proposals.
>
> He suggests not doing any heuristics, but follow a predefined default behavior. 'fill', 'stroke', 'mask', 'clip-path' always assume that fragments (which are no media fragments) are treated as resources. For all other properties, they are treated as images.
>
> For CSS Masking that would mean:
>
>         mask: url(image.svg#id) is assumed to be a mask resource. At least if it is the only reference. If it has more than one list item, it is treated as image again.
>
>         mask-image: url(image.svg#id) is assumed to be an image, since the property, by default, takes CSS Images.

>From fantasai, actually.  But yes, this also seem pretty reasonable to me.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 21:58:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT