W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css4-images] First draft of css4-images, feedback requested

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 07:57:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAERejNa8R2DYx52MdQ2QsSh_Scg=UsqDrrFfo=BqqgzJY9gofg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I am missing the definition of a rectangular gradient like the example at
pixel2life.com shows [1].

Regarding issue 1 (nesting image-set()s):
I guess it needs to be differentiated between nesting image-set()s directly
within each other and having image-set()s inside image()s, which are placed
inside another image-set().
While direct nesting doesn't make sense in my eyes, allowing them within
image-set() sounds logical.

Regarding issue 2 (fallback behavior for image-set()):
I agree that people don't need an additional fallback behavior when they
can use use image() inside of image-set(). So the user agent must choose
the most appropriate resolution of an image-set().

Regarding issue 3 (only allow 'x' within image-set() instead of
<resolution>):
The use case for printing is big. So restricting to 'x' doesn't make sense
to me neither.

Regarding issue 10 (image-resolution and image-set()):
I'd say image-resolution should be used to overwrite the resolution of the
image and should be 'auto' by default, which means to keep the resolution
untouched.

Furthermore providing a resolution for images inside image-set() should be
optional to allow using the resolution of the image's metadata.

Didn't read about the other parts yet. So there's probably more feedback to
come.

Sebastian

[1] http://www.pixel2life.com/collections/usr2/263/img386.jpg
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 05:58:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT