- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:44:30 -0700
- To: Alex Kaminski <activewidgets@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:48 AM, Alex Kaminski <activewidgets@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> No, I think you misunderstood. I am saying that the file part only be
>> specified once, and that the hash part changes which portion of the
>> image is
>> shown. Just as an HTML file is loaded once, and a hash Anchor (<A>
>> tag) does
>> not reload the file but just scrolls to a different portion.
>>
>> So the above would be written this way:
>>
>> .xp .checkbox.normal.small { background-image:
>> url(xp/checkbox/small.png#xywh=0,0,10,10); }
>> .true{ background-image: url(#xywh=25,0,10,10); }
>>
>> That is, the hash part (#xywh=25,0,10,10) only changes the area
>> within the
>> image, it does not change which file is loaded from the server. The
>> second
>> rule, above, would be equivalent to this:
>>
>> .true{ background-image: url(xp/checkbox/
>> small.png#xywh=25,0,10,10); }
>>
>> ...
>>
>> So, in a sense it is like having two different properties (a later
>> or more
>> specific ur() functions with a file name would not overwrite a url()
>> function that only contained the hash value), it could still be used
>> wherever url() is used, without adding new properties to each url()-
>> using
>> property.
>>
>>
>
> OK, now I understand. That an interesting idea, might work actually.
>
> So what happens if the library user overwrites base url with his own
> image -
> will the hash segments apply to the new image or the old one?
The new one.
>
>
> --
> Alex Kaminski
> http://www.activewidgets.com
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 12:45:17 UTC