Re: [css3-images] The image fallback syntax + new image types

Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> This draft has appeared late yesterday on the public cvs server and I
> took a quick glance at it.

Heh, I was hoping to finish the minutes before announcing that so people
would have some context for why it exists. :) Also to make sure the WG
wants it to exist, since it was only an informal agreement to define this.

> A few rapid comments:
> - Is <image> intended to reference only images (ie, anything you could
> put inside an <img>) or any kind of replaced content (ie anything you
> could put inside an <embed>)?
> More specifically, will "content" be extend with the <image> syntax?

It is intended only for 2D images.

> - Why did you introduce the <url-token> type?
> Wasn't it easier to use <string> | <url>, or just <url>? I guess
> <url-token> will create a lot of tokenization problems, that we should
> avoid in general, without introducing real benefits (you just skip
> "url(" and ")" )

The benefit is not having to quote everything. I put it in to see
what implementors think; if it's not a problem for them, then I
propose keeping it.

> - Why the last part of image is preceded by a keyword?

To avoid parsing it as a url-token.

> In addition, I propose to add support for one color images. This would
> be especially useful in background, if you can stack multiple
> partially transparent colours, with some covering only the content,
> some the padding area and some the whole border box. Also, now that
> border-images can be wider than the box, using colour images is useful
> to avoid hacks with common borders and negative margins.

I don't understand the use case.

> Lastly, I propose to specify gradients, that WebKit currently
> supports, or as an alternative, to provide references to SVG paint
> servers.

The WG has not discussed or agreed to add gradients yet, so it's
not in the draft. It would fit in this module, however.


Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 14:09:42 UTC