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

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

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:08:55 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: SVG Working Group repository <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D44AAFB6-F87D-4C60-A13B-18458CF8A0CE@adobe.com>

On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
I gave you the exact problems for <image>. Can you point out where you see the problems for <gradient>? I might have missed some points, but currently I don't see the comparison of <gradient> to the other <image> types.


> 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 17:09:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:37 UTC