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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:27:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDn+8y+d2OJF=R4YwqK6P17ds6_qvfWUkudPvDQFuVjOA@mail.gmail.com>
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.)

Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 19:28:46 UTC

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