W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

Re: [css3-images] The image fallback syntax + new image types

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:10:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4A31C70F.4050506@inkedblade.net>
To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> 2009/6/10 fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>:
>> Giovanni Campagna wrote:
>>> This draft has appeared late yesterday on the public cvs server and I
>>> took a quick glance at it.
>> Heh, I was hoping to finish the minutes before announcing that so people
>> would have some context for why it exists. :) Also to make sure the WG
>> wants it to exist, since it was only an informal agreement to define this.
> 
> Well, somewhere you have to define new <image> types, either now or in
> CSS4, either there or in the Values and Units module, so probably you
> would want it to exist.

It's already defined in css3-values.

>>> A few rapid comments:
>>>
>>> - Is <image> intended to reference only images (ie, anything you could
>>> put inside an <img>) or any kind of replaced content (ie anything you
>>> could put inside an <embed>)?
>>> More specifically, will "content" be extend with the <image> syntax?
>> It is intended only for 2D images.
> 
> Why this limitation? And what is the definition of 2D images? SVG
> representing 3D scenes using 2D shapes are considered 2D? And SVG with
> 3D transforms?
> Images must be static? Animated GIFs, animated SVGs or videos are
> considered <image>s?

The limitations and behavior are exactly as for url() within the context
of the relevant properties.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 03:10:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT