W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Idea: background-image-frame attribute

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 00:38:51 -0500
Message-ID: <abd6c8010512312138x1318adb1hc4af6810827e7ce@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 1/1/06, HeroreV <herorev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Except it is returning a value, specifically image data.
>
> If url() returns the data that is present at the given URL and not the URL
> itself, it is not very semantic. And if url() really does represent a URL,
> then properties such as background-image aren't very semantic, since a URL
> pointing to an image is not an actual image.
>
> background-image - Give me the source of some image data.
> url() - Here's a source.
> me - Why is background-image asking for a source?

As I said, what's missing is an image object that takes the url
object. CSS has little omissions like this all over the place. From
missing parameters, to inconsistencies between property names and
functions and when to use them. To try and call forth some sort of
single reasoning behind them probably won't work. Since there are many
precidents from which to pull from.

> background-image - Give me some image data.
> url() - Okay, here's some.
> me - Why is an expression named "url" returning image data?
>
>
> > [paraphasing] What's really going on is:
> > background-image: image(url(some-already-clipped.jpg));
> > but image() is never explicitly used.

--

Orion Adrian
Received on Sunday, 1 January 2006 05:39:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:42 GMT