- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:45:51 +0000
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- CC: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
On Nov 26, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> >> On 25 Nov 2014, at 20:37, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 25, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> >> > Raised in issue 44: https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui#issue44 >> > >> > currently, the cursor property takes its images from a list of <uri>. It should use a list of <image> instead, to get access to the various functional notations defined for this value type. This is backward compatible as <uri> is a valid value of <image>. >> >> I agree for CSS UI level 4. As you said, <image> is backward compatible. However, I am not so sure if linear/radial gradients and all other <image> values are supported in all browsers. My suggestion is to change it in the next level. >> >> Right. Blink (and I believe still WebKit) currently support only image-set. > > Or we can do like css-backgrounds-3 did: > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds-3/#value-types > > Which allows people who want to get ahead to do so by combining specs, while not making it a conformance breaking things to only support the <uri> subset of <image>. I do not object to this. However, it seems to move the testing efforts from CSS UI to CSS Images since the latter is overriding the definition of <image>. That makes me feel uncomfortable and I would still prefer to use <url> in CSS3 UI. Unless there are two compatible browser implementations for <image> of course. In this case CSS3 UI should support <image> as specified in CSS3 Images with a normative reference to CSS3 Images. The tests should be written agains CSS UI. Greetings, Dirk > > - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 17:46:28 UTC