- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 12:40:16 +1000
- To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
LĂ©onie Watson wrote: > SVG does present a workable alternative, but it still has minimal > support, which I think someone else already mentioned. SVG is likely to take > some time before it reaches critical mass in terms of support and > implementation, something css is already well in advance of. Lack of support for an existing standard, such as SVG, which can already produce the desired effects, is no reason start filling in the gaps in CSS, using new properties which will also take quite some time to get widely implemented. As I said in a previous post, being able to apply images to foregrounds, as is currently possible with backgrounds, would allow more flexibility than any of the current gradient proposals. Extending the Color module with the following properties should solve this: 'color' 'foreground-image' 'foreground-repeat' 'foreground-attachment' 'foreground-position' 'foreground-clip' 'foreground-origin' 'foreground-size' 'foreground-quantity' 'foreground-spacing' 'foreground' Where each 'foreground-*' property is equivalent to it's matching 'background-*' property, except that they apply to the colour/image of the foreground (ie. the text). A few other people have suggested 'color: url()', however I don't think this would make sense because 'background-color: url()' also doesn't exist. So, ignoring the lack of support, the only issues I can think of that would prevent the use images would be the scaling problems (associated with raster graphics), and file size/download times. However, vector graphics, such as SVG, or even (to a lesser extent) proprietary types such as Macromedia Flash already cover these issues reasonably well. -- Lachlan Hunt
Received on Saturday, 15 May 2004 22:40:48 UTC