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

Re: [css3-images] [css3-gcpm] element() and element()

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:53:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDuYL53t6nrOGRZ-YnsEtLa-TbjMWyR9=JwpQX83=ZxxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Feb 29, 2012 6:24 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 04:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> My intent is that, eventually, element() will be usable by other
>> properties as well that need to refer to an element.  When it's used
>> in an<image>  context, it means what Image Values says.  When it's
>> used in some other context, it means whatever that context wants.
>>
>> The only problem occurs if you want a property to accept both<image>s
>> and whatever other type accepts element().  I doubt that this conflict
>> will be much of a problem.
>
>
> Actually, in CSS, all of our values are strongly typed. They don't
> depend on context. Introducing a function whose interpretation depends
> on context is therefore inconsistent. If we're an <image> type, we're
> always an <image> type. Various parsing situations depend or will depend
> on this. The 'background' and 'content' properties are two examples where
> many types can collide, but the principle is general.

Your assertion can't be true - the url() function is already not strongly
typed in the way you suggest.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 06:53:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT