W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Filters spec: CSS vs SVG

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:50:24 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikxSyZfQ6vnJcmf6MwCsDKCjTx0ZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-fx@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi Tab,

the fact that these image producing filters can be pulled in through the
feComposite filter means that they're still needed in the new spec.
Maybe the same filter syntax can be in place in both specifications.

Rik

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
> >> I think all existing markup filters should remain and be available to
> all
> >> content via the filter property.
> >
> > There was a discussion between you and Tab Atkins about this under the
> title
> > 'generators in filters'.
> > I thought the consensus was to move these to the image values module. Are
> > you suggesting instead that they are available in images values and
> filters?
>
> Yes, all existing filters should remain, as SVG filters.  In the CSS
> syntax, they're accessible simply by the url() function.
>
> However, the filters that are just image servers, like feTurbulence,
> won't get a facelift as CSS functions in the Filters spec; instead,
> they'll be part of the Image Values spec, which is the correct place
> to define new image servers in CSS.  (Their current existence as SVG
> Filters appears to be a historical accident, possibly as a result of
> SVG not quite unifying its notion of what an image server is.)
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 23:53:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:48 GMT