W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [CSS-images] Specify fallback behavior when replaced or background image content not available (#1984)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:21:50 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-516920731-1564590109-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Specify fallback behavior when replaced or background image content not available`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Specify fallback behavior when replaced or background image content not available<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1984<br>
&lt;fantasai> Changeset https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/846d21d922fa4a47abea7be3ab57bcf3ebf62395<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Request for review b/c change to CR Images 3. Chris__ pointed out innvalid counts things not finished same as fails. Doing fallback based on invalid images would treat them the same and this doesn't seem desirable. Shouldn't fallback to a second image if the image hasn't finished loading.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Separated the concepts and you're allowed to be smarter in certain specific ways. Image functio will be different on how we do fallback<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Making sure this is okay and wording looks good<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Loading image state that includes images that are lazy load that hasn't started loading?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Yeah<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Anything else besides a call to action?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: We'll need resolution. We can ask next week if want time to review. Else can resolve now<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Do people feel this is trivial enough to resolve?<br>
&lt;dael> myles: We did a bunch on async image decoding last year. In cases when script involved it changed css and html attributes dynamically. As script changes from one image to another the interstitial state mattered. THis is tricky to get right. I should take this to our team and make sure it matches our research<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Okay.<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Good point. Might need explicit call out. An image that previously allowed an image but is now loading new data<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> s/allowed/loaded/<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: You're right. We should call that out. We should call out an image being replaced as a sub category of loading image.<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I would like clarification on the loading case; it says may trigger fallback rendering in contexts that offer it. Is it a may in UA may and what are the contexts?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Accidental may. Contexts are none right now. Image function will once it's defined.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: It isn't. While an image loading you may trigger fallback but you don't have to. You may want a loading image icon. B/c not broken we wanted to let UA decide correct thing, fallback or loading indication. That's why next sentence is must<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We made a distinction there. One is required, one optional<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Makes sense<br>
&lt;tantek> wait am I missing something? I thought some browsers rendered the alt text before an image was downloaded<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I think we should take myles's edits and then bring back to list. Let myles review and try and resolve next week<br>
&lt;tantek> and thought that was specified in the HTML spec<br>
&lt;fantasai> that's a fallback rendering, technically :)<br>
&lt;tantek> agreed<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Next week we'll review again. Next week as APAC time, a reminder.<br>
&lt;tantek> however the issue didn't mention alt text so I'm confused<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1984#issuecomment-516920731 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2019 16:21:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:50 UTC