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

Re: [css3-images] Generalize the notion of 'invalid images' for image() fallback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:04:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCdsR64qPtfQRS70axDL84X9zPSQgG1wJ7Z0iX_Bw8BpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2012 02:22:12 Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> With an explicit hook, other sources of <image> could potentially
>> hook into this as well, though I'm not currently aware of anything
>> else that would want to.
>
> You mean like linear-gradient() and radial-gradient()? Why wouldn't they
> make sense inside image()?

Because they can't "fail" like a url or element() can.  As long as you
don't make a syntax error, a gradient will *always* produce an image.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 21:05:41 GMT

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