- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:10:07 -0700
- To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Giovanni Campagna wrote: > 2009/6/10 fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>: >> 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. > > Well, somewhere you have to define new <image> types, either now or in > CSS4, either there or in the Values and Units module, so probably you > would want it to exist. It's already defined in css3-values. >>> 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 this limitation? And what is the definition of 2D images? SVG > representing 3D scenes using 2D shapes are considered 2D? And SVG with > 3D transforms? > Images must be static? Animated GIFs, animated SVGs or videos are > considered <image>s? The limitations and behavior are exactly as for url() within the context of the relevant properties. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 03:10:47 UTC