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: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:15:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDYvbj72OfvR9FEjz_CbxsWOPgCY7htDsWh5wO0mk1qpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> In this case image() has no fallback behavior at all. It’s whole purpose changes completely. The reason why people would use it is just because of image(<color>) and it seems strange that we need a function to specify the color .. or have <url> and <string> at all. Unless people want to have EXIF support of course.

image() still has several useful things it can do, and some more stuff
we punted to Level 4, like giving an image directionality (so it gets
reversed in bidi situations).

That said, I think the "fallback to solid color" thing is valuable to
keep, separately from the "choose from multiple urls" case.  I think
the latter will get farmed out to improvements in image-set() to make
it match the abilities of <picture> more closely, but the former is
useful in a different way than resolution enhancements or type
negotiation is.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 18:16:30 UTC

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