- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:56:35 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BANLkTi=iHEecss-iTgok3NdJpB6qeK84cQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > It would even be better if there was a way that you could refer to a SVG > > symbol instead of a paint server. > > We're working on converting Flash content to HTML+SVG and if the > animation > > is complex, we create many external SVG files. > > The size of the SVG files is not a problem but having to do a http > request > > for each one causes a lot of overhead. > > If we could refer to symbols, we could put all our content in 1 external > > file which is much more efficient... > > That's theoretically doable by just targetting <svg> subelements > directly, right? > Correct but it requires JavaScript to make it work. > > Alternately, it might be doable by a suitable interpretation of > <pattern>. By default, I'd treat a <pattern> as an infinite image > constructed from positioning and tiling the contents. Alternately, we > could treat <pattern> as just its contents, and leave the tiling part > to CSS. That would be a bit more magical than I probably want to > worry about, though. Yes, using patterns feels more like a hack. I agree that for your proposal, patterns should either not tile or be excluded as a paint server. Rik
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 20:57:12 UTC