Re: [css3-images] [css3-gcpm] element() and element()

attr() in values and types draft was going to allow an argument to specify
type... if that remained, it might be nice to stay consistent... image is
an element, just a different kind right.
On Mar 7, 2012 1:55 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>