W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2010

Re: [css3-images] Color as an image type

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:13:50 -0800
Message-ID: <4CEC3C9E.4030400@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/23/2010 01:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I have a final issue I want to try and get feedback on before I think
> I'm ready to request that Image Values be published as a Working
> Draft.
>
> Right now there are two ways to fake such a thing.  Originally, you
> could create a color-image using the gradient functions - for example,
> linear-gradient(yellow,yellow)" would create a solid yellow image with
> no intrinsic dimensions.  Now, we have the image fallback function
> which can also serve this purpose somewhat more cleanly - if you just
> provide a fallback color and no images, it'll return an image of that
> color - image(yellow).
>
> The latter may be sufficient to pronounce this "not a problem", but
> the extra function is just kind of gratuitous, especially if you're
> already using one of the color functions - "image(rgba(0,0,0,.5))"
> looks uglier than necessary.

I think this is sufficient. image(<color>) is only needed if the author
needs a solid color *as* an image for some reason. If a property should
naturally accept colors, then the property should just allow <color>
explicitly.

I don't think there's adequate justification for making <color> a subset
of <image. It complicates our parsing requirements and gives more people
a reason to confuse 2D images with 0D colors.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 22:14:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT