- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:26:44 -0800
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > This was brought up before. It would be great to use an SVG paint server for CSS images, just with the url() function. > > element() (with its current definition) can just reference paint servers in the same document. The FXTF resolved to treat fragments on URIs as resources for the url() function[1]. Media Fragments will be supported with image(). > > It would make a lot sense to allow resource to be paint servers on url(): background-image: url(resources.svg#pattern); > > * It is already the case for 'fill' and 'stroke' in SVG > * Users may have these expectations (especially with SVG background) > * another step of harmonization between SVG and CSS > * 'fill' and 'stroke' can support CSS Images directly > > Greetings, > Dirk > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012OctDec/0079.html Ah, cool, thanks for pointing this out, as I'd missed the meeting. This is fine with me. It means that Media Fragments will require the use of image() to force the proper interpretation, but that's all right. I'm fine with editting this decision into Images 4. I'm fairly comfortable with it since smfr was there, and I believe roc just wanted a reasonable and unambiguous solution, and didn't have strong preferences for the exact breakdown. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 17:27:37 UTC