W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2014

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

From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:32:49 +0100
To: "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w94vgzwndhsuf5@gnorps>
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:05:16 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> You can wrap a color in image() to transform it into an <image> value.
>>
>> I just wanted to point out that:
>>
>> background: url(“image.png”) red;
>>
>>  means something different than:
>>
>> fill: url(“image.png”) red;
>>
>> In the first example the color is drawn, in the second it is just a  
>> fallback.
>>
>> This is unfortunate but can not be changed.
>
> Ah, gotcha.  I'd forgotten about that unfortunate aspect of the grammar.
>
> ~TJ

It would be interesting to have some stats on how much content would break  
if we were to change to the interpretation used in the background  
property. The example "fill: url(image.png) red" is unlikely to be found  
anywhere since that isn't going to render the image based on SVG 1.1. I'm  
wondering how much of a need there really is to have the fallback color in  
the first place, maybe this is something we should revisit? There might be  
a better alternative.

Do the most common svg authoring tools typically provide the fallback  
color for fill/stroke? My guess is that they don't.


-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 09:33:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:48 UTC