W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css-color][filter-effects] (was: Re: [filter-effects] Tainted filter primitives)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:41:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDw0R95h7HocYNut2iB3vraNQHJ_sTZ8a04gFdZpkhcQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yup, but that means that flood-color on the <feFlood> will computed to
>> "currentColor", and thus be caught by the general prohibition against
>> currentColor as a computed value.  There's no need to call out
>> "inherit" specifically; it just confuses things.
>
> Could you point me to the last valid definition of currentColor please? I am getting confused here. Is the one in CSS3 Colors already correct or do I need to check another definition?

CSS3 Colors works, yes.  That's irrelevant for what I'm saying.  What
I'm saying in the quoted paragraph is that the "inherit" keyword
*never shows up in computed values*.  It gets processed in the
cascaded->specified transition.  "inherit" has absolutely nothing to
do with the tainting concept.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 22:42:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:38 UTC