W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [css3-values] unresolvable URIs

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:47:11 +0800
Message-ID: <5005A51F.2080901@csail.mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: W3C Public Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
(Cc -all +www-archive)

(12/07/17 3:18), fantasai wrote:
> (12/04/08 18:19), Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
>> (edge cases)
>>
>> CSS 2.1 has this sentence
>>
>>   # User agents may vary in how they handle invalid URIs or URIs that
>>   # designate unavailable or inapplicable resources.
>>
>> which was removed in CSS3 V&U last August[1]. I can't find discussions
>> about this, in particular anything about invalid URIs, in the archive,
>> but I'll provide some data out of testing at the end of this mail, which
>> may or may not support this removal. Note that, the spec now says
>>
>>   # When a <url> appears in the computed value of a property, it is
>>   # resolved to an absolute URL, as described in the preceding
>>   # paragraph.
>>
>> and it doesn't say what to do when this is not doable, and RFC 3986,
>> which is referenced, has plenty of these.
> 
> This was defined in some other random section of CSS2.1:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#computed-value
>   # The computed value of URIs that the UA cannot resolve to absolute
>   # URIs is the specified value.
> 
> I've now copied this over into css3-values. Let me know if this
> addresses your comment.

Yes.

> IIRC, the advice we received was to continue referencing RFC3986 for now.
> So that's what we're doing.

That's fine by me given that the above sentence is in css3-values now.

>> Another URI-related question is the 'url' type parameter in attr(). The
>> spec says
>>
>>   # The default is a UA-dependent URI defined to point to a
>>   # non-existent document with a generic error condition. (i.e. it
>>   # shouldn't be an FTP URI that causes a DNS error, or an HTTP URI
>>   # that results in a 404, it should be a nondescript error condition.)
>>
>> Can we use something UA-independent, say, "about:blank" or something
>> else in the 'about' scheme? (Cced public-irc for this purpose)
> 
> We've registered 'about:invalid' for this purpose and included it in
> the spec.
> 
> Let me know if these responses are satisfactory.

Yes. (I'd hope I don't need to answer Accept-ish response though.)


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 17:47:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:08 UTC