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

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

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:44:53 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.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>
Message-ID: <7DA82553-7E78-41B2-83E9-10DD87850A3F@adobe.com>

On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
Fantasai was just louder and didn't let poor Stephen talk, even if he gave hand sign all the time ;)

Dirk

> 
> ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 06:47:13 GMT

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