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

Re: [css3-values][css3-images] element() function

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:02:00 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinnPb+4FuFGLgef5Pq2M7TWmVf4JF=chhnoOZGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:09 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 08/31/2010 05:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> No push-back from me, but I'm not convinced that element() is quite right
>>> yet.
>>
>> Could you elaborate?  I'd obviously like to know what isn't right
>> before I try and spec this.  ^_^
>
> I would rather see it added to css3-images than to css3-values, since
> that's what we have a concrete use case for and know we are able to
> implement. If some future spec like Positioning would like to add
> element() values, then we can deal with that use case there.

What would you think would be the appropriate thing to do then?
Define it for images now in Image Values, later define it more
generally in Positioning, then kick it up into Values & Units 4?

I'm just trying to avoid weirdnesses caused by defining this in an
image-specific way right now.  The Values & Units version of it would
just define it generally in syntax terms and then Image Values would
define what it means as an <image>, just like how the two of them work
together on the url() function.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 18:02:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT