- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 00:38:51 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 1/1/06, HeroreV <herorev@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Except it is returning a value, specifically image data. > > If url() returns the data that is present at the given URL and not the URL > itself, it is not very semantic. And if url() really does represent a URL, > then properties such as background-image aren't very semantic, since a URL > pointing to an image is not an actual image. > > background-image - Give me the source of some image data. > url() - Here's a source. > me - Why is background-image asking for a source? As I said, what's missing is an image object that takes the url object. CSS has little omissions like this all over the place. From missing parameters, to inconsistencies between property names and functions and when to use them. To try and call forth some sort of single reasoning behind them probably won't work. Since there are many precidents from which to pull from. > background-image - Give me some image data. > url() - Okay, here's some. > me - Why is an expression named "url" returning image data? > > > > [paraphasing] What's really going on is: > > background-image: image(url(some-already-clipped.jpg)); > > but image() is never explicitly used. -- Orion Adrian
Received on Sunday, 1 January 2006 05:39:13 UTC