W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: SVG12: getRGBColorTrait vs non-SVGRGBColor

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:58:48 +0200
To: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, chris@w3.org, cam@mcc.id.au
Message-ID: <inhs42dc4rh7b7ck976kh4piem5pb4th11@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Andrew Shellshear wrote:
>>>We have changed the wording
>>>
>>>"actual trait value is not an SVGRGBColor, i.e. 'none' or a link to a 
>>>paint server (e.g. to a gradient or a solid-color), this method must..."
>>>to
>>>
>>>"actual trait value is not an SVGRGBColor, i.e. 'none' or a paint server 
>>>(e.g. a gradient, system paint, or solid-color), this method must..."
>>
>>I agree with the concerns raised by Chris and Cameron, could
>>the relevant sections be changed along the lines they suggest?
>
>Section 11.14 now says:
>
>Apart from System Paint, paint servers are referenced using an Local IRI 
>reference on a 'fill' or 'stroke' property.

The concerns raised were relative to the uDOM appendix, not 11.14. I'm
not sure this addresses Chris' or Cameron's concerns. As for my comment,
I will look at this once the long overdue draft has been published.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 15:59:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT