-webkit-image-set() might be a requirement to be compatible. #144
Comments
To watch out probably for Webkit "image-src" support is missing. We only support "-webkit-image-src" |
|
Looks like the spec for this is https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-4/#image-set-notation. Should the prefixed variant be defined to behave exactly the same, or are there differences? @schenney-chromium do you know? |
|
We would have a long road to remove the prefixed version because it is used in many Chrome and ChromeOS UI pages. Any change short of removing would also be challenging. Fortunately, based on my understand of the parsing code and the spec, the -webkit-image-set spec is a syntactically valid subset of the image-set spec and the spec gives us a lot of scope in how to decide which image to use. So I don't see a need to adjust any spec based on back-compat and the implementation of image-set will be somewhat easier. |
|
I think w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 is the most trivial way to go forward with this in terms of complexity of both specifications and implementations. |
The webkit syntax is an strict subset of the modern one, so this should be doable, and is the simplest. If my reading of the WebKit code is correct it should also be the way WebKit deals with this (except they restrict -webkit-image-set() syntax artificially). * w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 * whatwg/compat#144 Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D114912 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1709415 gecko-commit: 01bca848cb09b426c0c1c5f34d32dbe3fa5b9aa7 gecko-reviewers: karlcow, twisniewski
…e-set(). r=karlcow,twisniewski The webkit syntax is an strict subset of the modern one, so this should be doable, and is the simplest. If my reading of the WebKit code is correct it should also be the way WebKit deals with this (except they restrict -webkit-image-set() syntax artificially). * w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 * whatwg/compat#144 Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D114912
The webkit syntax is an strict subset of the modern one, so this should be doable, and is the simplest. If my reading of the WebKit code is correct it should also be the way WebKit deals with this (except they restrict -webkit-image-set() syntax artificially). * w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 * whatwg/compat#144 Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D114912 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1709415 gecko-commit: 01bca848cb09b426c0c1c5f34d32dbe3fa5b9aa7 gecko-reviewers: karlcow, twisniewski
|
This can be closed, as w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 defined this in the CSS Images spec. |
|
Awesome. |
The webkit syntax is an strict subset of the modern one, so this should be doable, and is the simplest. If my reading of the WebKit code is correct it should also be the way WebKit deals with this (except they restrict -webkit-image-set() syntax artificially). * w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 * whatwg/compat#144 Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D114912
The webkit syntax is an strict subset of the modern one, so this should be doable, and is the simplest. If my reading of the WebKit code is correct it should also be the way WebKit deals with this (except they restrict -webkit-image-set() syntax artificially). * w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 * whatwg/compat#144 Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D114912
The webkit syntax is an strict subset of the modern one, so this should be doable, and is the simplest. If my reading of the WebKit code is correct it should also be the way WebKit deals with this (except they restrict -webkit-image-set() syntax artificially). * w3c/csswg-drafts#6285 * whatwg/compat#144 Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D114912
GitHub shows some usage of
-webkit-image-set()onlyThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: