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.

~fantasai

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