- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:53:01 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 06:53:29 UTC
On Feb 29, 2012 6:24 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 02/29/2012 04:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> My intent is that, eventually, element() will be usable by other >> properties as well that need to refer to an element. When it's used >> in an<image> context, it means what Image Values says. When it's >> used in some other context, it means whatever that context wants. >> >> The only problem occurs if you want a property to accept both<image>s >> and whatever other type accepts element(). I doubt that this conflict >> will be much of a problem. > > > Actually, in CSS, all of our values are strongly typed. They don't > depend on context. Introducing a function whose interpretation depends > on context is therefore inconsistent. If we're an <image> type, we're > always an <image> type. Various parsing situations depend or will depend > on this. The 'background' and 'content' properties are two examples where > many types can collide, but the principle is general. Your assertion can't be true - the url() function is already not strongly typed in the way you suggest. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 06:53:29 UTC