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

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 22:02:02 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaKxBrHgd5TceOvng3aBCdnGJjtfuZdO35KziWH-jU9Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> If we do not find an agreement, a way to limit the security restriction
> further would be to the following:
>
> For feFlood and feDropShadow: If the value for the ‘flood-color’ property
> computes to ‘inherit’ or ‘currentColor’ the feFlood filter primitive must
> be marked as tainted.
>
> For fe*Lighting: If the value for the ‘lighting-color’ property computes
> to ‘inherit’ or ‘currentColor’ the feFlood filter primitive must be marked
> as tainted.
>
> It is already rare that people use inherit or currentColor for the named
> properties. Thankfully, both properties are not inherited.
>
> Would that be exceptable for now?
>

Works for me.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Wednesday, 25 December 2013 09:02:30 UTC

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