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

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> On Oct 29, 2012, at 5:07 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>
I kind of like the proposal to add a new media fragment. But first, I don't
> think that it will be as easy as the current way to do SVG stacks (the
> current version just works because of selector pseudo elements, which would
> need to be simulated) and after all, even WebKit supports SVG stacks. You
> can not use it with CSS Image values so, but you can use it in combination
> with the <object> tag. One specification already makes use of that, Filter
> Effects [1].
>
> And there already exists an quite popular tool to create SVG stacks:
> https://github.com/preciousforever/SVG-Stacker
> The tool can be changed. But content that was created with it so far, just
> stops working.


Erik Dahlstrom (I think) pointed out in my blog post that existing SVG
stacks using <img> and <object>, including your Filter Effects spec, would
not be affected by this. Only SVG stacks referenced by 'background:url()'
would be affected and apparently that only works in Firefox today.
(Although
http://preciousforever.github.com/SVG-Stacker/examples/wikipedia/commons/stack/stack-demo-css-hack.htmldoes
have some polyfill that uses background:url() in Firefox.) So maybe
the compat issue isn't that bad.

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]