- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:52:42 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@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 Aug 8, 2012, at 7:33 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Can you elaborate with what that would look like?
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 15:53:16 UTC