Re: Ambiguities in fill:url() / stroke:url() syntax

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> 'background-image: url(resource.svg#pattern)' could allow filling the
> background with an SVG pattern, or could reference a SVG gradient or SVG
> mesh gradient. And these SVG resources could be in a different document;
> something that is not possible with the 'element()' function yet.
>

It is in our implementation of element(). We're just waiting for the spec
to catch up. This is not a big deal. We don't have to wait for the spec to
be updated, feel free to go ahead and implement element() and
cross-document SVG resource references in it.

> An SVG Stack doesn't work in 'fill' at all anyway.  The only property
> > with an ambiguity so far is the new 'mask'.  Soonish I hope to have
> > the ambiguity spread to all CSS properties that take an image, but
> > they'll default to images as they currently do, so it'll be fine
> > (you'll have to use element() to refer to an external resource).
>
> The proposal above would definitely mean that fragments can not be used
> for SVG stacks or media fragments. Media fragments would still be supported
> with the image() function then. This would be against my previous wish to
> support SVG stacks for URLs, but it might be a consensus that we all can
> live with.
>

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not sure which proposal you're
supporting now.

Rob
-- 
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority
over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among
you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your
slave — just
as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his
life as a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28]