W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Ambiguities in fill:url() / stroke:url() syntax

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:55:06 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLY6=v183g=LbEtV9H7jNe0+C9bNBHht58PsO17GMkCpmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> If we should introduce the image() function, I don't necessarily see a
> reason for option a) and c). They might confuse people when they don't need
> to use image() but when they really do. Just URL may always mean paint
> server reference. But don't have strong feelings.

If we don't do option c), then every use of SVG images in CSS on the Web
today will be broken. That's not acceptable.

We could probably drop option a) without too much trouble. But I don't
think we should.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 09:55:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:38 UTC