W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [css-shapes][Editorial] Are SVG images allowed?

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:56:41 -0700
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
Message-ID: <CDE64093.2C588%stearns@adobe.com>
On 6/17/13 9:56 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder if the type for shape from images should change from <uri> to
>>> <image>.
>> Yes, please.  <url> is *not* a sufficient description of the image
>> type - it excludes things like the image() function.  Please reference
>> Values & Units <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#images> when you
>> do so.
>I think that is the point. This would also allow CSS gradients and the
>image() function (if the later does not get postponed.).

I don't see an issue in allowing either of those. While specifying a solid
color image() might be useless as a shape, a gradient, image fragment or a
fallback list could be useful.


Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 23:57:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:31 UTC