- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:24:28 -0800
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, chris@w3.org
Following up on this: I just wanted to point out that Tav added some wording to allow multiple <paint> values ~6 months ago (which we agreed to). How should we reconcile this with your proposal that uses only a single bg layer (without an <attachment>, as we agreed to this week)? Although <bg-layer> and <final-bg-layer> are defined so that you can only put a <color> at the end of the list, Tav's changes do allow multiple <color>s. By the way, I would be quite happy to change the way ICC colour fallbacks are done. Perhaps the fallback can be within the icc-color() function rather than outside. Chris do you have any opinion on this? Regarding "fill: url(image.png) red", like Erik I wonder really if anybody uses that and whether we can remove the fallback.
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2014 00:25:06 UTC