Re: Content model section of stop in SVG2 draft

On 10/07/2014 02:05 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> 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?

AFAIK I never said that :) Maybe you were thinking of gradient in 
gradient? That probably works in all implementations. The example Tab
mentioned does not work in my Firefox Nightly nor Chrome (both Linux).
Cheers,

Rob.

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 18:20:05 UTC