- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 07:57:51 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAERejNa8R2DYx52MdQ2QsSh_Scg=UsqDrrFfo=BqqgzJY9gofg@mail.gmail.com>
I am missing the definition of a rectangular gradient like the example at pixel2life.com shows [1]. Regarding issue 1 (nesting image-set()s): I guess it needs to be differentiated between nesting image-set()s directly within each other and having image-set()s inside image()s, which are placed inside another image-set(). While direct nesting doesn't make sense in my eyes, allowing them within image-set() sounds logical. Regarding issue 2 (fallback behavior for image-set()): I agree that people don't need an additional fallback behavior when they can use use image() inside of image-set(). So the user agent must choose the most appropriate resolution of an image-set(). Regarding issue 3 (only allow 'x' within image-set() instead of <resolution>): The use case for printing is big. So restricting to 'x' doesn't make sense to me neither. Regarding issue 10 (image-resolution and image-set()): I'd say image-resolution should be used to overwrite the resolution of the image and should be 'auto' by default, which means to keep the resolution untouched. Furthermore providing a resolution for images inside image-set() should be optional to allow using the resolution of the image's metadata. Didn't read about the other parts yet. So there's probably more feedback to come. Sebastian [1] http://www.pixel2life.com/collections/usr2/263/img386.jpg
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 05:58:20 UTC