W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-color][filter-effects] (was: Re: [filter-effects] Tainted filter primitives)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:11:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAXT9qFh4=KKPbaW7ZubRK31kcYm5tKhiqgJwtuuqnzjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>>> I guess we should define in CSS Colors a "sanitized 'color' value" that is
>>> safe to be exposed to Web scripts, and in Filters define 'flood-color' and
>>> 'lighting-color' to use the "sanitized 'color' value" for currentColor
>>
>> I'm fine with this.  So what all goes into it?  Color values coming
>> from :visited selectors, obviously, and transitively with
>> currentcolor.  Anything else?
>
> Looks like my previous mail didn’t get through.
>
> Why not be a bit more conservative. Since we want to expose "used values” and “active values" by CSS OM - why not let currentColor always get the same color that a “active value” property or function would return? I mean we should not differ between currentColor with “sanitized ‘color’” and another one. Just always use the  “sanitized ‘color’” for currentColor.

That's silly.  There's no reason to break currentcolor just because
:visited is being used.  Plus, depending on implementation strategy,
actually getting the sanitized color is expensive (as you have to
rerun style matching, excluding all rules with :visited in their
selectors).

~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 19:12:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC