- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:38:28 +0100
- 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. Sebastian
Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 09:39:17 UTC