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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:29:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBqn_susk26vj9WvaXkydqoZ3z1DpRAKqoSZe-LVv9drg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Kang-Hao Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin
<aharon@google.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for re-collecting them!

> 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.

Yeah, this is true.  Right now, you'd have to indicate the
directionality on every url.  This is *theoretically* of use, but
since the common case is intended to be just providing alternative
versions of the same image, it's obviously non-optimal to force this.

Perhaps we could move the annotations to the front of the function,
and then let the image alternatives trail off the end?  Actually, this
sounds like a pretty good idea.

>> 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.

I don't think this is a particularly huge issue.  Yeah, most text is
inherently directional, but people are used to images being

> 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.

I would like to give some thought to an @image at-rule that gives us a
nice, extensible way to do things like this, but I don't think it's
required just for image directionality.

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 15:30:24 UTC

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