Re: [css3-images] element() in css3-image

On 02/29/2012 12:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, fantasai wrote:
> >
>> In that case it can be removed without changing the meaning of the spec,
>> so let's do that and avoid the concerns about it.
>
> Uh, no.  It's a useful example of how host languages can extend the
> set of matchable elements.

Sure, it's a nice example. But it doesn't change anything meaningful,
and is therefore not critical. I'd rather add a nice example when
there's a spec we're all happy to reference than put in an example
that may become invalid within the next month.

>
>>>>   - and the fact that the currently-proposed solution requires either scripting
>>>>    or presentation-only elements in the document even for simple cases like
>>>>    "I want to use a bunch of statically-defined paint servers written in
>>>>    SVG"
>>>
>>> Don't mix together the notions of "presentation-only HTML" and
>>> "presentation-only SVG".  *Most* of SVG is presentation-only.  That's
>>> the point.
>>
>> If I want to use an SVG paint server as a background, and in order to do
>> that I have to insert the<pattern>  element into every HTML file I apply
>> my stylesheet to, that's pretty broken feature design whatever you want
>> to call it.
>
> Or you can use scripting to generate it and insert it into the
> document.  This is identical to the case where you want to use a
> <canvas>  as the background.

And this is better how?

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 21:06:34 UTC