- From: Kristopher Giesing <kris.giesing@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:59:35 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
I don't think that's true. The DOM for example renders back to front. I do things like http://jsfiddle.net/b4v3s/ all the time. I don't have a strong opinion about the point under discussion, but the rationale you give doesn't really make sense to me. - Kris On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: >> Cameron McCormack wrote: >>>> I think it's going to be kind of unobvious that you need to use >>>> image(color) for the common case of putting a colour underneath a >>>> hatch pattern. For example not being able to write: >>>> >>>> fill: yellow, url(#diagonalhatch); >> Dirk Schulze wrote: >>> >>> This example doesn't make sense. You the last specified layer is the >>> last layer to draw. In your case you would not see diagonal hatch >>> because you fill the are with yellow right after it. >> >> Oh, because in 'background' the list of background layers goes from >> front to back, I see. I forgot that. Why is that the case again? :) > > Because that's the way that makes sense to non-implementors. Nobody > cares about the painting order, they care about the visual order, and > 'background' puts the first visual layer you see first in the list. > > ~TJ >
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 19:00:05 UTC