Sebastian Zartner

Just a recap, as it seems, people have forgotten about or have different understandings of the proposals: @LeaVerou's initial idea was to create an image and manipulate it with this...

@booluw wrote: > I think the sizes of those SVGs and gradients should be the values defined in the `manipulation rule`, since the image is being created. You are right...

@ydaniv wrote: > > I expected the images generated by an @image-manipulation rule to always be cached because the manipulations are only applied once to an image. Or are there...

Given the very positive feedback so far, let's add this to the agenda. Points to discuss: * Allow image creation or just manipulation? * Allow animations and transitions? If so,...

This issue is about _image manipulation_, i.e. creating variations of existing images. This is what the very first sentence of it says. I am not completely against allowing the at-rule...

Ah, and the use case of compositing images is a different one which should be discussed separately. Sebastian

I guess irregularily providing feedback on different issues doesn't qualify for being listed, though if it's ok, you could add me as Sebastian Zartner with the image I use here...

As others mentioned before, naming those pseudo-elements and the API just "view" might be too general and may lead to confusions with other features. Reading the initial renaming proposal, I...

> @Loirooriol Your version doesn't allow full reordering. Really? I think the issue is rather that some square brackets are missing, at least for readability. So the above syntax can...

> The brackets can be omitted, see https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#component-combinators I know. That's why I wrote "at least for readability". > But yeah I guess `||` is not associative, since can only...