- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:22:50 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 08/08/2011 03:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >>> * defined a general notion of "paint source" which SVG and HTML can >>> use for elements that don't need to be rendered to be used as an image >>> (<linearGradient>,<img>, etc.) >> >> I'm not sure that<img> etc. from HTML should be considered "paint sources" >> rather than just handled as regular elements... why do you want to do this? > > -moz-element() allows some elements (limited, I believe, to > <img>/<video>/<canvas>) to be used in the function without being > inserted into the document (you create them in script, then associate > them with a virtual id). By default, if they're not in the document, > they're not rendered, and so wouldn't be usable. SVG's paint servers > suffer from the same problem (they're not rendered directly, but they > have an intrinsic notion of size and appearance), so it seemed elegant > to just unify the concepts. I think the SVG concept is not really the same thing. If you insert an <img>/<video>/<canvas> into the document, it will render. But it might render with, for example, borders and padding. Or it might render as alt text / fallback content rather than as a replaced element. This is different from the way SVG paint servers behave. So I don't think unifying the concepts the way you did makes sense. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 00:23:23 UTC