- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:25:19 +0200
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > On 6/14/13 1:06 PM, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >>How about 'attr(src)' instead of a keyword? Then one could reference >>other attributes too, such as 'data-foo', and the feature would be more >>source language agnostic (not just HTML's 'src'). > > You should be able to use attr(whatever) as well. I'm thinking the keyword > would be more about making sure the shape you get from the image file > lines up with the displayed image. You can do all sorts of things with > positioning and sizing an image within a content area. If the alpha shape > doesn't also get those positioning and sizing steps, it won't be aligned > with the displayed image. > > I don't think that it makes sense to have a shape version of everything > you can do to an image (shape-object-fit:contain?). I was thinking the > 'image' keyword would be a way of saying, "Do everything necessary to line > up the alpha shape with the displayed image." > > And if you don't want or need the shape to match the displayed image (or > you want to use a different image entirely for the shape) you could use > the URL or attr(src). Nitpick: attr(src url). Otherwise you've got a <string> rather than a <url> value. I agree with this reasoning. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 15 June 2013 05:26:07 UTC