- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:01:35 -0500
- To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
- Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/10/18 Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>: >> OK, I think I see what you mean. I'd use 'filter' for that and add a named >> "CSSContent" filter image. > > Uhm... no CSS only solution? I supposed this was a goal when you > designed gradients, for example. In general, I'm fine with delegating functionality like this to SVG, which already has the necessary complexity built-in. There's no need to do *everything* in pure CSS when we'd just be duplicating a companion technology. Gradients are a special case, as they're extremely common (more common even than the use of opacity outside of actual images), can be expressed *much* more succinctly than in SVG, and can benefit from more box information than can be easily captured by an SVG image. For less-used options which are either more complex in CSS or less complex in SVG, though, there's a cutoff where the cost of extending CSS outweighs the cost of requiring the use of a separate technology. Coming up with a good, general solution for SVG filters in CSS expands our options *greatly*, and also will allow us to see what sort of effects are really desirable but currently too hard to achieve, for possible porting back into pure CSS. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 13:02:29 UTC