W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: [css-color][filter-effects] (was: Re: [filter-effects] Tainted filter primitives)

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:05:14 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <05AE05EB-6D9C-4C1C-A15F-AC2C5C9ADAA1@adobe.com>

On Dec 13, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> I guess we should define in CSS Colors a "sanitized 'color' value" that is
>> safe to be exposed to Web scripts, and in Filters define 'flood-color' and
>> 'lighting-color' to use the "sanitized 'color' value" for currentColor
> I'm fine with this.  So what all goes into it?  Color values coming
> from :visited selectors, obviously, and transitively with
> currentcolor.  Anything else?

Looks like my previous mail didn’t get through.

Why not be a bit more conservative. Since we want to expose "used values” and “active values" by CSS OM - why not let currentColor always get the same color that a “active value” property or function would return? I mean we should not differ between currentColor with “sanitized ‘color’” and another one. Just always use the  “sanitized ‘color’” for currentColor.


> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 19:05:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:47 UTC