W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css4-images] First draft of css4-images, feedback requested

From: Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin <aharon@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:06:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+FsOYag8xJHffXUr87eeBy-QfWgH-RZ087Dn9kp2rGbjhjggQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Kang-Hao Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:20 UTC