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

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

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 23:04:25 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0C2F8C6A-76C8-4AE6-B86E-FAA4F0B1C33B@adobe.com>

On Jan 3, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Ok, understood. Will incorporate that.


> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 23:04:55 UTC

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