- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:13:50 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/23/2010 01:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I have a final issue I want to try and get feedback on before I think > I'm ready to request that Image Values be published as a Working > Draft. > > Right now there are two ways to fake such a thing. Originally, you > could create a color-image using the gradient functions - for example, > linear-gradient(yellow,yellow)" would create a solid yellow image with > no intrinsic dimensions. Now, we have the image fallback function > which can also serve this purpose somewhat more cleanly - if you just > provide a fallback color and no images, it'll return an image of that > color - image(yellow). > > The latter may be sufficient to pronounce this "not a problem", but > the extra function is just kind of gratuitous, especially if you're > already using one of the color functions - "image(rgba(0,0,0,.5))" > looks uglier than necessary. I think this is sufficient. image(<color>) is only needed if the author needs a solid color *as* an image for some reason. If a property should naturally accept colors, then the property should just allow <color> explicitly. I don't think there's adequate justification for making <color> a subset of <image. It complicates our parsing requirements and gives more people a reason to confuse 2D images with 0D colors. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 22:14:25 UTC