W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2016

Re: [css-images] Syntax for image() incorrect?

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:38:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAERejNY5zYScs7jNFG=LaTGbem2sOajORxSre_ZFxvDoAgdUMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 4 March 2016 at 00:35, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Sebastian Zartner
> <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regarding my second point about extending <image> to accept <color>
> > values, I saw that you had the same idea some years ago.[1]
> > It looks like fantasai was reluctant to this idea but the thread
> > didn't come to a conclusion and as far as I can see this is also not
> > mentioned in any WG minutes. So, maybe this topic should be revived?
> Nah, it would cause enough grammatical ambiguity that I'm fine with
> not doing it, and just letting image(<color>) fill that void.

Before, you said this ambiguity only affects the 'background'
shorthand and could easily be solved. So, is there anything new that
you changed your mind about that?
I agree with your previous opinion: Requiring to pack it into image()
is gratuitous, but people could probably live with it.

Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 09:39:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:01 UTC