- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:27:57 -0800
- To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The 'background' ambiguity is annoying enough that it's a significant argument against, imo. Now that we're adopting SVG's fill/stroke properties into CSS, there's a similar ambiguity. In general, adding ambiguity when there's such an easy way to do it non-ambiguously (just 7 characters for image(), and it advertises your intent really well too) isn't worth it. (My thinking may have changed on the matter from several years ago, I haven't read the entire thread you're linking back to.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 19:28:46 UTC