- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:21:16 -0800
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/14/13 1:20 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I had discussions with several developers and designers about the CSS >image function element() [1]. I was asked why the WG did broadening the >capabilities of element() so far. The element() function could promote >bad practices rather than expressive functionalities. The concerns were >not necessarily that functionalities should be limited but rather to be >clear about consequences instead of adding extensive features because we >can. > >These are without doubt very subjective impressions. I would like to ask >the members of this mailing list to send Š (yes, I am absolutely serious >here) Š use cases. > >It makes it a lot easier to justify if the functionality satisfies the >expectations of the authors when we can do analyzes based on use cases. >It may proof that the element() function is the right functionality. >Sometimes analyzes can reveal that different, simpler functionalities are >more sufficient. > >Thank you very much for participating and every use case you can bring >up. I think this helps understanding the expected potential of element() >a lot. I would like to collect these use cases on a Wiki page for later >reference. > >Greetings, >Dirk > >[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images/#element-notation > I am expecting to use a self-referential version of element() for shape-outside, to allow wrapping around rendered contours. The security issues present in element() match the security issues in using rendered contours for wrapping, so I think it's a good fit. But if we do not have a self-referential version of element() a keyword could be used for the shape-outside use case instead. Thanks, Alan
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 03:21:44 UTC