W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [css3-images] image-* property split

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:17:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDs4SpND7s6iNw5Jk+5uhfEfTQrrXDJAYhyWDroUvxDvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 02:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
>>  wrote:
>>> We have multiple implementations of image-resolution, so that should
>>> definitely stay. And I remember writing tests for image-orientation
>>> for HP, so that probably also should stay unless someone can make a
>>> case for that part of the spec being unstable.
>>
>> I'd like to synchronize the syntax of image-resolution with the syntax
>> of the resolution argument in image() (basically, this would involve
>> adding 'snap' to image-resolution and 'from-image' to image()).
>> However, that can be done in Images 4.
>>
>> Everyone else, are you okay with me adding image-resolution and
>> image-orientation back Images 3?  Should they be marked as at-risk, or
>> put in plainly?
>
> I suggest to mark image-orientation at-risk, but image-resolution we have
> two implementations of so I don't think it's needed. Or add 'snap' to it
> and mark 'snap' as at-risk. :)

I've gone with the latter.  I also took the opportunity to rewrite the
value descriptions for image-resolution so that they're actually
testable.  ^_^

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 00:18:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT