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

Re: [css-shapes][Editorial] Are SVG images allowed?

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:12:30 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
Message-ID: <CDE0AA42.2C1B1%stearns@adobe.com>
On 6/13/13 5:05 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:
>> The current wording [1] is a bit ambiguous regarding whether SVG images
>>are
>> allowed for shape generation or whether itıs only raster images:
>>
>> Another way of defining shapes is by specifying a source image whose
>>alpha
>> channel is used to compute the shape. The shape is computed to be the
>>path
>> that encloses the area where the opacity of the specified image is
>>greater
>> than the Œshape-image-thresholdı value. If the Œshape-image-thresholdı
>>is
>> not specified, the initial value to be considered is 0.5.
>>
>> For animated raster image formats (such as GIF), the first frame of the
>> animation sequence is used.
>>
>>
>> There is also this note in the change Log [2]:
>>
>> Postpone shapes from SVG to a future Shapes level
>>
>>
>> My interpretation was that SVG images are allowed, and the alpha channel
>> used refers to the alpha channel of the rendered SVG. I assumed the
>> changelog note was about defining SVG shapes directly in CSS code.
>>However,
>> Ericıs (CCed) interpretation was that only raster images are allowed,
>>which
>> indicates that thereıs some ambiguity here.
>>
>> [1]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-shapes/#shapes-from-image
>> [2]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-shapes/#since-may-3rd-2012
>
>Yes, all images are allowed, regardless of format.  The only
>SVG-related thing that's been postponed is referencing SVG elements
>directly.
>
>~TJ

Yes, the intent is to allow all images. I've changed the changelog to
clarify that it's only SVG elements that have been postponed.

I wonder if the type for shape from images should change from <uri> to
<image>.

Thanks,

Alan
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 18:13:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC