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

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

From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:13 +0000
Message-ID: <47C733D9.2000308@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org



Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:19:20 +0100, Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de> 
> wrote:
>>     background-image: url(image.svg image.png image.gif image.jpg);
>>
>> Any opinions?
> 
> I quickly tested Opera 9.x and Firefox 3 and it seems that unquoted URIs 
> containing spaces are dropped and unquoted URIs containing commas are 
> not. So the above would work better for at least those UAs...

>> Anne, what does "dropped" mean ?
> 
> Same as "ignored", "doesn't end up in the CSSOM", etc.
> 
>   body { background:url(image) }
>   body { background:url(x x) }
> 
> would show "image", and not "x%20x", as background image.

OK, but would not any half-intelligent parser,
on being presented with either

	background-image: url(image.svg image.png image.gif image.jpg)

		or

	background-image: url(image.svg, image.png, image.gif, image.jpg)

and with an /a priori/ knowledge of the extend syntax,
first parse at the macro level ("identify URI separators
and/or terminator") before passing the resulting entities
to the URI parser module ?  In which case, the behaviour
of the (micro-level) URI parser is not relevant, is it ?

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 22:21:33 GMT

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