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

Re: [css3-images] Features Overview

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 21:38:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4DC4CCDF.2070300@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On 05/06/2011 06:22 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2011, at 4:05 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> [ discussing http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/#naming-space ]
>> To be fair, I'm not 100% clear on how this syntax is supposed to
>> be handled in the general case. There are discussions there about
>> clipping out the portion of the image, and others that are just
>> about showing some kind of focus ring around that portion of the
>> image. That alternate interpretation is the real issue with using
>> this in url(), imho.
>
> Yeah, yuck! Maybe it is up to CSS to decide what to do with the
> identified fragment when used in CSS?

Maybe. I'm not too clear on where the spec boundaries are here. :/
I suppose we can say that url() passes fragment identifiers to the
replaced element (so they can do focus rings or whatever), whereas
image() uses them to yank bits out of the image, but that brings
us back to what does it mean to load an image with a #xywh fragment
identifier...

> On May 6, 2011, at 3:48 PM, fantasai wrote:
>
>> (On a related note, the Media Fragments WG needs to specify what happens
>> when the fragment identifies coordinates that are not within the image
>> bounds.)
>
> I would hope for transparent pixels where the fragment exceeds the
> image bounds. Seems like that could be useful, even.

Yeah. I would hope that's how they define it. Or we define it. Or whatever.

-____-;;

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2011 04:44:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT