- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:56:41 -0700
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
On 6/17/13 9:56 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >>> I wonder if the type for shape from images should change from <uri> to >>> <image>. >> >> Yes, please. <url> is *not* a sufficient description of the image >> type - it excludes things like the image() function. Please reference >> Values & Units <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#images> when you >> do so. > >I think that is the point. This would also allow CSS gradients and the >image() function (if the later does not get postponed.). I don't see an issue in allowing either of those. While specifying a solid color image() might be useless as a shape, a gradient, image fragment or a fallback list could be useful. Thanks, Alan
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 23:57:10 UTC