W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Applying SVG properties to non-SVG content

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:04:17 -0400
Message-ID: <48902081.8020208@w3.org>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>

Hi, Rob-

The SVG WG recently talked about your proposal for SVG CSS effects, and 
we think it would make a good module for SVG.  Several of us reviewed 
it, and liked what we saw.  There's room for some more considerations, 
but we understand and agree with your desire to keep it small and focused.

If you are willing to bring this to the SVG WG, we would be very glad to 
take it on.  (Note, the minutes mention CDF, but during the 
conversation, we came to the conclusion that this is more in scope for SVG.)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-svg-minutes.html#item08

Regards-
-Doug Schepers, on behalf of the SVG WG
W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF


Robert O'Callahan wrote (on 7/8/08 7:00 PM):
> I've implemented some experimental features for applying SVG effects to 
> HTML. In particular, SVG 'filter', 'clip-path', and 'mask' properties 
> are made applicable to non-SVG content and SVG paint servers can be used 
> as CSS backgrounds. These are described with examples in my blog:
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/06/applying_svg_ef.html
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/07/svg_paint_serve.html
> There are also links to experimental Firefox builds supporting these 
> features.
> 
> I've written up a draft specification for these features:
> http://people.mozilla.com/~roc/SVG-CSS-Effects-Draft.html
> I'd greatly appreciate any comments. One thing I'm not sure about is 
> where this specification should live. Obviously it's right in between 
> two working groups :-). Another thing I'm interested in resolving is how 
> we should expose these in Gecko releases; using a vendor prefix would be 
> more annoying than usual because I've created no new properties here (in 
> fact, no new syntax at all).
> 
> One thing that's obviously missing here is transformations. I don't 
> think there's any value in linking to SVG for those. Instead I support 
> CSS-based transformations like Apple's proposal (at least its 2D 
> subset). (In fact someone is actually working on implementing that for 
> Gecko.)
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 08:04:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:39 GMT