W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [CSS21] The grammar of url() token

From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:30:35 +0100
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.t67fg9l8gqiacl@gnorps.palace.opera.no>

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:59:36 +0100, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
>>    Bert Bos wrote:
>>   > But to answer the question about the comma: We wanted to preserve  
>> the
>>  > possibility of adding arguments to the url(), e.g.,
>>  > url(http://example.com/,cookie=hfdh455f).
>>  That is (IMHO) a horribly ugly syntax; the delimiter
>> needs to be tall if it is to be obvious, and a semi-colon
>> would be far clearer to the reader than a comma (which
>> actually looked like a period in the e-mail, and only
>> became a clear comma when I replied using a monospaced
>> font).
>
> A better future extension would be URL fallbacks, imo:
>
>    background-image: url(image.svg, image.png, image.gif, image.jpg);

That would indeed be tremendously useful (that applies to all CSS  
properties that can reference images, list-image comes to mind for  
example).

Cheers
/Erik

-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 22:32:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:01 GMT