Re: Applying SVG properties to non-SVG content

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2008, at 01:00 , Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
>> I've written up a draft specification for these features:
>> http://people.mozilla.com/~roc/SVG-CSS-Effects-Draft.html<http://people.mozilla.com/%7Eroc/SVG-CSS-Effects-Draft.html>
>>
>
> Overall the wording would probably need some tweaking but it looks good to
> me. This is probably a no-brainer but have you taken into account the way
> SVG backgrounds work in Opera? Presumably it does something similar, and it
> would be nice to have agreement right out of the box.
>

As far as I know, Opera supports SVG images via 'background-image' and
<img>, but doesn't do anything that conflicts with the features here --- it
just ignores them as invalid, same as other browsers.


>
>  Another thing I'm interested in resolving is how we should expose these in
>> Gecko releases; using a vendor prefix would be more annoying than usual
>> because I've created no new properties here (in fact, no new syntax at all).
>>
>
> Any downsides to a preference that's off by default?
>

Yes --- that makes it unusable :-).

The best vendor-prefix option I can see is to introduce a new CSS value
-moz-url() which is just like url() except that paint servers specified with
-moz-url() work on non-SVG content and paint servers specified with url()
don't, and -moz-url() clip-paths, masks and filters work on non-SVG content
but url()s don't. That somehow seems daft, but I could probably be talked
into it.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]