- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:47:17 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/10/2012 12:34 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > (12/03/11 4:16), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> All of this is described pretty clearly in the spec. The entire >> description is a single short paragraph. > > which I'll include here > > # Along with each ‘<image-decl>’, the author may specify a > # directionality, similar to adding a dir attribute to an element in > # HTML. The ‘image()’ function takes on the directionality of the > # used ‘<image-decl>’, if any. If a directional image is used on or > # in an element with opposite direction, the image must be flipped in > # the inline direction (as if it was transformed by, e.g.,scaleX(-1), > # if the inline direction is the X axis). > > Regarding this, I don't think there is a use case for specifying > different modes (non-flipping, ltr, rtl) for different images in the > fallback chain. The fact that the syntax allows this seems to indicate > that this syntax is suboptimal, although I don't have better suggestion > at the moment. Hi Kenny, The CSSWG resolved today to defer the rtl/ltr image annotations to Level 4 so that we can address your comment. This issue is currently filed as Last Call comment 37: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/issues-lc-2012#issue-37 And I've now refiled it as ISSUE-232 against CSS4 Images: https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/232 ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 03:47:47 UTC