- From: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:59:06 -0500
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'SVG public list'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Thanks TJ, Perhaps this helps to explain why browsers have not been a hurry to implement them. Take a look at the differences here: http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/svg/feImage.jpg clockwise from upper left: Opera, Firefox, Safari, IE/ASV, Chrome. This is for the file located at http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/svg/feImage1.svg Regards David -----Original Message----- From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:54 AM To: David Dailey Cc: SVG public list Subject: Re: feTile and feImage -- radical inconsistencies across browsers On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:06 AM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote: > The overall question I was trying to ask was “does feTile really add > anything that <pattern> doesn’t? And does <feImage> really do anything that > <image> doesn’t?” I’m relatively certain that the answer is yes, but it’s > hard to convince myself in the absence of such oddities. I believe their only advantage over their respective non-filter brethren (note that <feImage> is also equivalent to <use>) is that they can define their own filter sub-region bounds. Otherwise they're equivalent to passing a paint server as a filter input. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:59:36 UTC