W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:47:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4A85BF4E.6030603@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:02 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>> One other thing...
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net
>>> <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote:
>>>     * sgalineau can definitely see gradients used for border-image
>>> I can't, really, at least not as-is. Nor do I see them as being useful for
>>> 'list-style-image', 'cursor' or 'content'.
>>> Orthogonality is cool, but actual use-cases beyond 'background' seem
>>> pretty thin. If we have trouble specifying the behaviour of gradients for
>>> those other properties (because there's no natural size to use for the
>>> gradient, perhaps), I think we could just disallow them.
>> Sounds like a case for making <gradient> separate from <image>.
> As Brad mentioned, though, we already have *images* without intrinsic
> dimensions in SVG.  How do we deal with those?  Are they unsuitable
> for use in list-style-image, etc?
> Whatever solution is used for SVG without intrinsic dimensions, an
> identical solution should be applicable to gradients.

Behavior for that, and cursors, and background images, and list-style-image
is all in the CSS2.1 spec. (IIRC Anne filed the issue a year or two ago. ;)
So we could just put it in <image>. But I can see that in several places
we'd want slightly different behavior for gradient(), or want to allow
it in places where standard images are not allowed (e.g. border-color).

Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 19:48:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:38 UTC