- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:15:42 -0700
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > 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. image() still has several useful things it can do, and some more stuff we punted to Level 4, like giving an image directionality (so it gets reversed in bidi situations). That said, I think the "fallback to solid color" thing is valuable to keep, separately from the "choose from multiple urls" case. I think the latter will get farmed out to improvements in image-set() to make it match the abilities of <picture> more closely, but the former is useful in a different way than resolution enhancements or type negotiation is. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 18:16:30 UTC