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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:33:54 -0700
Message-ID: <53501082.8070203@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/16/2014 10:50 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.

Thanks for starting the thread, Dirk!

> 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>]? )


Actually, I was thinking more

    image( <url> | <string> | <color>)

because it's the comma-separation part that's unclear how it will work.

> 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. We're reducing image() to the subset that we know for sure
will be a subset of any future image() proposal.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 17:34:24 UTC

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