Re: [css-images] Changes to image()

On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:33 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> 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.

In this case image() has no fallback behavior at all. It’s whole purpose changes completely. The reason why people would use it is just because of image(<color>) and it seems strange that we need a function to specify the color .. or have <url> and <string> at all. Unless people want to have EXIF support of course.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
>> 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.
> 
> ~fantasai
>

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 18:11:22 UTC