W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Non-http: methods in CSS URL()

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:10:40 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200503012110.j21LAeh01333@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

Your subject is confused.  mailto: is a scheme, and what you are really
talking about is the content, as file: and ftp: would, for example, be
just as good as http:, but audio/basic might be problematic.

> What would list members expect to be the
> result of the following code fragment ?

The same as for an img element using the same uri, but with the image
clipped to the size of a single space.  I would hope, in the case of
HTTP schemes, that the Accept header would only include image types,
although some authors might want to include dynamic SVG and Flash.

> Internet Explorer (V6) opens an e-mail window,

Clearly broken, but garbage in garbage out, so probably better treated
as a "don't care" case.  Embedding the e-mail application under the 
span might be borderline correct.
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 22:29:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:36 GMT