- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 02:18:58 +0000
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx <public-fx@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > 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. I did propose having multiple layers (which is conform to the intentions of Tav). Multiple colors can be archived with the image() function which creates a “color image”. > > 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. The only open question as far as I can see is the fallback color. As you say, background and borders has a different definition for the color value at the end of a list. I like the idea of having a fallback color in the icc function and change the meaning of the current fallback behavior. Greetings, Dirk
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2014 02:19:31 UTC