On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > I feel pretty strongly that the SVG behavior is not appropriate. I think > any > > sort of invalid 'filter' value, including a <filter> element with a child > > element of unknown type, should cause the filtered element to be rendered > > normally (i.e. 'filter' treated as 'none'). Otherwise I think introducing > > new <fe> SVG element types does not get useful fallback. > > It doesn't get useful fallback in any case. You can't provide a > fallback filter. > In a lot of cases, "render as if there was no filter" is a good fallback. "Render nothing" is rarely a useful fallback. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2013 03:26:28 UTC