- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 11:09:15 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/06/2011 09:21 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/6/11 1:04 AM, fantasai wrote:
>> background-image: url('swirl.png'); /* old UAs */
>> background-image: image('sprites.png#xywh=10,30,60,20'); /* new UAs */
>
> An important question. Would this:
>
> background-image: url('sprites.png#xywh=10,30,60,20');
>
> still show the sprite in new UAs? Or would the #xywh thing be restricted to urls in image()?
The #xywh thing is a generic extension to URL syntax. It's not a CSS
thing. (And it is not, in fact, defined by this draft.)
Yes, that would show the sprite in new UAs. I put examples of this in
the spec, I don't understand how this is not clear?
> The spec draft sounds like this would work for url() too; that seems
> like it might cause behavior changes in existing pages...
Like what?
> And things get really interesting if the image is an SVG, where a ref
> already means something entirely different.
Presumably such refs match the identifier syntax, which is not
compatible with the media fragment syntax, and therefore there
is no ambiguity as to which was meant.
> It may be worth it to allow the new syntax inside image().
It is already allowed? *confused*
~fantasai
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 18:09:46 UTC