Re: svg2: Add CSS gradient as paint server for 'fill' and 'stroke'. Fixed...

On Sep 4, 2012, at 8:58 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:43 PM, SVG Working Group repository
> <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>> details:   https://svgwg.org/hg/svg2/rev/dd51ba05bd19
>> branches:
>> changeset: 365:dd51ba05bd19
>> user:      Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
>> date:      Mon Sep 03 18:06:21 2012 -0700
>> description:
>> Add CSS gradient as paint server for 'fill' and 'stroke'. Fixed wrong references
> 
> Why is this being specific to the <gradient> type?  If you can support
> CSS gradients, you can support all of CSS's <image> type (or rather,
> as much of the <image> type as you support otherwise).
> 
> It would be mighty odd for someone to be able to use gradients both in
> 'background' and 'fill', but only use cross-fade() or image-set() in
> 'background'.

Having <image> as paint server is still desirable and I proposed that during our SVG WG call as well. However, there were reasonable concerns to just go with gradient first and clarify what is needed for <image>.
> 
> If the concern is that standalone viewers shouldn't have to support
> all of CSS, then we need to address this generally, rather than having
> silly little restrictions littered around.  The primary target here is
> browsers, and they support CSS.  We can just put a clause into the
> spec saying that standalone viewers without normal CSS support don't
> have to support all of CSS to be in compliance.
Sadly you did not call in. The concerns were not the support of CSS. The main concerns were if an <image> does not fit in the boundaries of an element. What should happen? Do we repeat? Do we just repeat horizontal? Vertical? Do we stretch? Note that we don't have the same control as background has on full and stroke. This needs to be clarified first. The usage of <gradient> at the beginning was less controversial and interacts like a paint server in SVG which is not necessarily the case for the other image types.

Greetings,
Dirk
> 
> ~TJ
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:22:56 UTC