On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > These examples... do not look good.
I presume you mean that they don't look good in the <style> case, but actually, I don't know if that's accurate. Don't forget that in many cases the page will have multiple such images. You have to duplicated the img-* markup in each case. You only have to give the <style> block once. > This is a subset of CSS, yes, but the line dividing "what you can use" > from "what you can't" is rather windy, rather than being clear-cut and > simple. People will regularly get this wrong. That's a valid concern, I think. FWIW, my original thought in this direction (which I unsuccessfully tried to peddle in #whatwg) was to use a dedicated language rather than something backwards-compatible with CSS. > A further, and kinda killer, problem with this is that it *can't be > reasonably polyfilled*. The main idea of Adam's idea is it doesn't have to be, no? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
