W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2014

Re: fill and stroke properties with CSS <image> values

From: Kristopher Giesing <kris.giesing@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:59:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAhnRF_xc6xJ06JziLczkcAOkUMQYYp23SkkNjAqNmejPD24+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
I don't think that's true.  The DOM for example renders back to front.
 I do things like http://jsfiddle.net/b4v3s/ all the time.

I don't have a strong opinion about the point under discussion, but
the rationale you give doesn't really make sense to me.

- Kris

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>> Cameron McCormack wrote:
>>>> I think it's going to be kind of unobvious that you need to use
>>>> image(color) for the common case of putting a colour underneath a
>>>> hatch pattern.  For example not being able to write:
>>>> fill: yellow, url(#diagonalhatch);
>> Dirk Schulze wrote:
>>> This example doesn't make sense. You the last specified layer is the
>>> last layer to draw. In your case you would not see diagonal hatch
>>> because you fill the are with yellow right after it.
>> Oh, because in 'background' the list of background layers goes from
>> front to back, I see.  I forgot that.  Why is that the case again? :)
> Because that's the way that makes sense to non-implementors.  Nobody
> cares about the painting order, they care about the visual order, and
> 'background' puts the first visual layer you see first in the list.
> ~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 19:00:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:35 UTC