- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:33:29 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin" <aharon@google.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Kang-Hao Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:42 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> I think “background” has been (ab)used enough. >>> >>> If the feature is important, make it part of image() not background. >> >> Definitely agree, though if I explored this in more detail, I'd do it >> with an @image at-rule that was basically creating a simplified form >> of SVG filters/etc in CSS. > > That sounds like it'd be harder to animate. Not necessarily. You'd "just" define the way in which animating an <image-graph> or whatever works, which would involve animating the sub-properties. I highly doubt you'd ever want to animate just some of the parts of it, after all. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 14:34:17 UTC