W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > November 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-images] [css-gcpm] Overloaded definitions of element()

From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:41:48 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-344777445-1510792907-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> Just for the record element() in GCPM spec has been used earlier than in CCS Images...

That's correct. The `element()` function was first mentioned in a [GCPM Working Draft back in 2006](https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-gcpm-20060919/), while the first mention in CSS Images was in a [2011 Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-css3-images-20110217/). Having said that, this doesn't have any influence on which syntax to decide on.

> ...and has more shipping implementations already.

As far as I can see on [MDN](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/element#Browser_compatibility) and [caniuse](https://caniuse.com/#feat=css-element-function) and my own tests, the only existing implementation of this is in Firefox and that one is prefixed. And that `-moz-element()` function uses the CSS Images syntax. There are no implementations of the unprefixed version yet, so everything is still open for discussion.

But you're right that also the definition within CSS Images could be renamed. Thinking further about that, I've added a fifth solution, which suggests to merge the syntax of the `element()` function into `image()`.
In my eyes, that would actually be a very clean solution, because `image()` is already meant to reference or create images.

Sebastian

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1981#issuecomment-344777445 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2017 00:41:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 November 2017 00:41:54 UTC