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

Re: Order and initial value of paint-order property

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:54:52 +1100
Message-ID: <52FD3F2C.1010101@mcc.id.au>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
CC: Stephen Chenney <schenney@chromium.org>, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Stephen Chenney:
>> If you really want to have one property control both the
>> inclusion/exclusion of paint stages, and the ordering, then it
>> should be called "paint-stages" or "paint-steps" and not
>> "paint-order". But I am not supporting that because of the
>> future-proofing and orthogonality arguments.

Dirk Schulze:
> The name is less important than the functionality. I am fine with
> renaming the property if that is the biggest problem. I personally
> think that the possibility to skip drawing of certain paint types is
> more convenient. I do not understand your last comment about
> future-proofing. Why would one or the other way be less
> future-proofing?

The future proofing argument is whether omitted keywords should mean 
they get painted in their natural order or if they should not be painted 
at all.  Let's say we wanted to extend this feature to allow controlling 
whether 'outline' is painted for the element. :-)  Existing content 
might write:

   paint-order: stroke fill markers;

Now when we add a fourth keyword 'outline' to the spec, this existing 
content would now not paint its outline.  To future-proof ourselves for 
when we add new keywords here, I made it so that all of the unspecified 
keywords are implicitly placed at the end of the list.  (That was a 
deliberate design decision btw.)
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 21:55:31 UTC

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