- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:55:23 +0000
- To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>
On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com> wrote:
>> Therefore, I suggest to use the following syntax for <image> and possibly paint servers as well:
>>
>> fill/stroke = <final-bg-layer> | <the-rest>
>> <final-bg-layer> = <image> || <position> [ / <bg-size> ]? || <repeat-style> || <attachment> || <box>{1,2} || <color>
>
> The grammar would require some more thought. "none" is part of the syntax in more than one place, and how icccolor is to be meshed into this isn't clear. Also, there's a requirement listed for having multiple paints, so it would be more natural to use the same syntax as for background:
>
> fill/stroke =[ <bg-layer> , ]* <final-bg-layer> | <the-rest>.
I actually hope that we can follow CSS Masking (but with layers) here. That means that <the rest> would magically disappear. And the paint server is just a <image> but with url(). ICC Colors should be part of CSS4 Colors already or will be once the editors added the changes.
The main difference to background (and I am very sad about that): <color> can not be painted when we have a valid paint server reference. But it can still be treated as for background for all other cases (means it is a separate solid color filled layer).
Greetings,
Dirk
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 10:55:53 UTC