- From: Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin <aharon@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:06:23 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Kang-Hao Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Message-ID: <CA+FsOYag8xJHffXUr87eeBy-QfWgH-RZ087Dn9kp2rGbjhjggQ@mail.gmail.com>
Regarding ltr/rtl, here are the comments from Kenny Lu and Andrew Fedoniouk that caused the feature to be bumped to level 4. I guess this needs to be discussed. On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu < kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > I don't think there is a use case for specifying > different modes (non-flipping, ltr, rtl) for different images in the > fallback chain. The fact that the syntax allows this seems to indicate > that this syntax is suboptimal, although I don't have better suggestion > at the moment. > By the way, this draws analogy with @dir in HTML which might > be the reason of this confusion because in HTML @dir defaults to ltr (in > some sense) while the default is "non-flipping" here. On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com > wrote: > If so then "annotate an image with a directionality" phrase > is misleading. > > For me annotation means act of assignment of some attribute. > But not the act of transforming image pixels (flipped as you mentioned). > > In any case image transformations (filters of any kind) should be a > subject of some other mechanism I think. There are many other > things that AFAIR were already requested for images. > > Something like > background-image-transformation: brightness(0.7) flip-x; > background-image-transformation: flip-y; > background-image-transformation: rotate(90deg); > background-image-transformation: transparent(rgb(255,255,0)); > background-image-transformation: shadow(1,1,2px); > etc. > > Such filters actually could be a part of the image() thing: > > image( a.png flip-x-if(rtl) ) > image( b.png flip-x-if(ltr) ) > image( c.png rotate-if(ttb,90deg) ) > image( d.png brightness(0.7) flip-x-if(rtl) ) > > etc. > > I mean if we've started speaking about image transformations then > we should use use syntax that is extendable. On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > Heya, I've finished up the first draft of Image Values level 4 > <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css4-images>, incorporating several of the > features we punted from level 3 and a few new ones. I'd greatly > appreciate feedback on the changes so we can potentially do a FPWD > after the f2f. > > Here's the list of changes I've made: > > * Added the ltr/rtl stuff back to image() > * Added element() back (moz implementation already exists) > * Added image-set() (safari implementation already exists) > * Added conic-gradient() function > * Sketched addition of the ability to move the focus in > radial-gradient, a la -webkit-gradient() > * Added an optional second location to color-stop, for easier > "stripes" in gradients > * Added 'from-image' to 'image-orientation', for automatic EXIF handling > * Added the 'image-rendering' property back > * Added (old) versions of the Interpolation and Serialization chapters > back. These need serious updating. > > > I'd particularly like to focus on element() and image-set(), as they > already have implementations in browsers. I'm willing to to punt the > rest again to level 5 if I can get consensus on those two fairly > quickly, so discussion about them and suggestions for how to finish > them off would be greatly appreciated. > > I'd like to take some time at the f2f to talk about element() and > image-set(), in particular. I have a list of issues for image-set() > already in the draft, and I'll be compiling a list of my element() > issues into the draft as well. > > ~TJ > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 15:07:13 UTC