- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:32:58 -0800
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C style mailing list mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote: > On Mar 7, 2012, at 22:04, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote: >>> On Tuesday 28 February 2012 02:22:12 Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> With an explicit hook, other sources of <image> could potentially >>>> hook into this as well, though I'm not currently aware of anything >>>> else that would want to. >>> >>> You mean like linear-gradient() and radial-gradient()? Why wouldn't they >>> make sense inside image()? >> >> Because they can't "fail" like a url or element() can. As long as you >> don't make a syntax error, a gradient will *always* produce an image. > > But a solid color cannot fail either, and yet it is allowed inside image(). Oh, yeah. It's a fallback, only allowed as the last entry, precisely because it can't ever fail. fantasai and I talked about allowing other <image> types as fallbacks originally, but it's a bit more complicated to work with for not much more benefit. I'll revisit that in a future level. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 22:33:46 UTC