W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2014

Re: [css-images] Changes to image()

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:50:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBh+wTzmED-s49iyiCyQb-5Q1-AnZhp=WPHz=fvE9h3Vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> In the CSS WG conf call we discussed several changes to image(). One was about default EXIF support. In this thread I would like to initiate a discussion about the second one.
>
> If I understood fantasai correctly during the call, she suggested removing the fallback behavior of image() with the exception of <color>[1] in level 3.
>
> Does that mean that the syntax will be reduced to the following?
>
>     image( <url> | <string> [, <color>]? )
>
> IIRC the reasoning was that UAs do not catch up with the implementation and level 4 will have much more possibilities. Beside multiple fallback images, it will have conditions from media queries and other things. Since it is not clear how these other things will look like, we should reduce the image() function to the minimal subset. Is that correct so far?

Yes.  Note that we already have a "choose from this list of urls"
feature in image-set(), and making it work together with image() is
non-trivial (or, depending on what you're doing, impossible in some
cases).

Plus, HTML's <picture> element provides another "choose from this list
of urls" feature, and I'd like CSS to be consistent with that.
image-set() is currently consistent with the "simple srcset" part of
<picture>, and it would be nice to be consistent with the rest of it.

So overall, the multiple-url feature probably needs some more
consideration, while the rest of the features of image() are pretty
non-controversial.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 23:51:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:21 UTC