[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Any thoughts? > > In general, I don't think the "SVG already does this" argument holds > much water. SVG does text, hyperlinking and inline inclusion of bitmap > images, features that were already in HTML, and this is not > unreasonable. These things are basic, and just as applicable to vector > graphics on the Web as to hypertext. > > So, even with the ability to use SVG styling with HTML, I think a > native CSS way to do it is still desirable. Gradients and masks are, > much like shadows and rounded corners, pretty basic effects that are > well supported by underlying graphics libraries. It shouldn't be > mandatory to reference them from a separate SVG document (with its own > SVG DOM and presumably render tree) to use them in CSS. > > While SVG is great as a markup language for scalable vector graphics, > I don't think it works so well as a styling language for other markup > languages. It was never designed for that.
I agree that "SVG already does this" on its own isn't enough of an argument. It's definitely useful to have some set of common operations available directly through CSS, but I think more complex things are better handled through the use of referencing an external resource, such as an SVG file or an SVG element. Another way to look at it would be that using SVG resources is the default solution to the problem space, but let CSS provide some convenience shortcuts to handle the most common cases. This still leaves the question of what the common cases are of course... One area where I think CSS could benefit from this is when doing page headers and page footers, which currently have syntax that is both complex and inadequate. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list dev-tech-layout@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
