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

Re: [css3-images] element() in css3-image

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:43:34 -0800
Message-ID: <4F4E7FE6.7020806@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/29/2012 09:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:47 AM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  wrote:
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/issues-lc-2012
>>
>> ====== On element() ======
>>
>> There's a ton of substantive issues on element(), particularly on the use of
>> elements that are not in the document. Given:
>>
>>   - the number of issues and their relative severity
>>   - the state of references to CSSElementMap
>
> The reference is informative.

In that case it can be removed without changing the meaning of the spec,
so let's do that and avoid the concerns about it.

> Nothing else needs to be said.

If it's a CSS-only mapping, then it should be defined in a CSS spec,
not HTML. If it's not, and it's a general ID-mapping mechanism, then
it should be called ElementMap, not CSSElementMap.

>>  - and the fact that the currently-proposed solution requires either scripting
>>    or presentation-only elements in the document even for simple cases like
>>    "I want to use a bunch of statically-defined paint servers written in
>>    SVG"
>
> Don't mix together the notions of "presentation-only HTML" and
> "presentation-only SVG".  *Most* of SVG is presentation-only.  That's
> the point.

If I want to use an SVG paint server as a background, and in order to do
that I have to insert the <pattern> element into every HTML file I apply
my stylesheet to, that's pretty broken feature design whatever you want
to call it.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 19:44:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT