W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:38:51 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbuUUNEDzNYE9YuCWcvgxT3MhdRew3E8P43xGQ1fe9XCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> SVG fragments work with CSS Images on three different browsers (IE, FF,
> Opera) and will work in the near future in WebKit. So either CSS Images or
> Mediafragments should deal with it.
> I personally don't see a disadvantage to reference images as paint server
> with a new 'image()' function: image(url(externel.svg#id)). Specific
> functions could be used directly like gradients or (later) element().

The problem is that for 'fill', 'stroke' and 'mask' properties, existing
SVG specs and content require that url(foo.svg#abc) be interpreted as a
paint-server reference. We can't requiring all existing content using
'fill', 'stroke' and 'mask' with url() paint-server references be updated
to use different syntax. So making 'fill', 'stroke' and 'mask' accept url()
CSS image values is a non-starter without some way of disambiguating the
reference. The 'mask' problem is particularly acute since -webkit-mask
*already* accepts CSS image values so simply unprefixing it would hit this

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 02:39:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:23 UTC