W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Applying SVG properties to non-SVG content

From: Ash Searle <ash.searle@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:24:57 +0100
Message-ID: <cb82be250807090424j58b32081kc37ac9e4b13570ec@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>

2008/7/9 Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>> Any downsides to a preference that's off by default?
> Yes --- that makes it unusable :-).

Absolutely agree.

> The best vendor-prefix option I can see is to introduce a new CSS value
> -moz-url() which is just like url() except that paint servers specified with
> -moz-url() work on non-SVG content and paint servers specified with url()
> don't, and -moz-url() clip-paths, masks and filters work on non-SVG content
> but url()s don't. That somehow seems daft, but I could probably be talked
> into it.

I don't see the point in a new prefix.  It would be nice if all the properties
that took url() values all followed the 'cursor' specification - but
I'm not sure
how much of a problem that would cause this far down the line:


   The user agent retrieves the cursor from the resource designated by
the URI. If the user agent cannot handle the first cursor of a list of
cursors, it should attempt to handle the second, etc. If the user
agent cannot handle any user-defined cursor, it must use the generic
cursor at the end of the list.

That comment could easily be generalised to background-image and other
url()-based values.

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:25:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:19 UTC