- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 18:05:21 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Rob Buis <rob.buis@samsung.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Oct 7, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Rob Buis <rob.buis@samsung.com> wrote: >> I was looking last week into making the content model for paint servers more >> restrictive in Blink. While doing that I >> noticed the content model section of <stop> changed in SVG2 draft: >> >> https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/single-page.html#pservers-GradientStops >> >> Personally I don't know if allowing paint servers in <stop> makes sense. >> Putting those in the parent gradient paint >> server makes more sense in my opinion and is an alternative. Also in some >> implementations the fact that a >> stop can have (render) children comes at a cost in code size/complexity. >> So basically I am wondering what people's opinion on this change is? > > This is very confusing; I have no idea why we'd allow markup like > "<stop><linearGradient /></stop>". It doesn't serve any useful > purpose, so we should cut it. As far as I know from Rob, all browsers support this. The spec changed already as well and matches implementations. So why change implementations and spec again? Greetings, Dirk > > ~TJ >
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 18:05:50 UTC