On 04/16/2014 10:50 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > Hi, > > In the CSS WG conf call we discussed several changes to image(). > One was about default EXIF support. In this thread I would like > to initiate a discussion about the second one. Thanks for starting the thread, Dirk! > If I understood fantasai correctly during the call, she suggested > removing the fallback behavior of image() with the exception of > <color>[1] in level 3. > > Does that mean that the syntax will be reduced to the following? > > image( <url> | <string> [, <color>]? ) Actually, I was thinking more image( <url> | <string> | <color>) because it's the comma-separation part that's unclear how it will work. > IIRC the reasoning was that UAs do not catch up with the implementation > and level 4 will have much more possibilities. Beside multiple fallback > images, it will have conditions from media queries and other things. > Since it is not clear how these other things will look like, we should > reduce the image() function to the minimal subset. Is that correct so far? Yes. We're reducing image() to the subset that we know for sure will be a subset of any future image() proposal. ~fantasaiReceived on Thursday, 17 April 2014 17:34:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:39 UTC