- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:39:34 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > These examples... do not look good. I presume you mean that they don't look good in the <style> case, but actually, I don't know if that's accurate. Don't forget that in many cases the page will have multiple such images. You have to duplicated the img-* markup in each case. You only have to give the <style> block once. > This is a subset of CSS, yes, but the line dividing "what you can use" > from "what you can't" is rather windy, rather than being clear-cut and > simple. People will regularly get this wrong. That's a valid concern, I think. FWIW, my original thought in this direction (which I unsuccessfully tried to peddle in #whatwg) was to use a dedicated language rather than something backwards-compatible with CSS. > A further, and kinda killer, problem with this is that it *can't be > reasonably polyfilled*. The main idea of Adam's idea is it doesn't have to be, no? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 22:39:59 UTC