- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:02:20 -0700
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: SVG Working Group repository <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > 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. Note that there is *literally zero difference* between <gradient> and the more general <image> in these questions. Limiting to just <gradient> for now saves you zero work, and just makes things less convenient for authors. You do need to answer what the painting area is for <image>, but that's it. There's no repetition involved. There might be stretching, depending on how you define things (using background-image terms, is the painting area the background-size, or just the background positioning area?). If you can answer these questions for <gradient>, you've answered them for <image>, automatically. If you think that <gradient> is simpler somehow, you're mistaken. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 17:03:07 UTC