W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2011

Re: [css3-images] Features Overview

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 16:05:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4DC47EA7.8030405@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/06/2011 02:58 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/6/11 5:42 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> It depends on the magnitude of the compat problem. I believe the
>> problem you're concerned about is entirely theoretical.
>
> That's _why_ you think that it doesn't need handling, yes.
>
> It just seems to me that as long as we're adding image() we have
> a way to avoid the problem completely... what are the benefits of
> not doing that?

I can shift the text to not use them in url(), and since that's
probably a best practice I don't mind, but whether they work in
url() or not will depend on the Media Fragments spec. If it's
defined that the fragment causes the URL to represent that portion
of the image such that <img src="sprites.png#xywh=..."> clips out
and displays that portion of the image, then it would make sense
to get the same behavior in CSS's url() notation.

To be fair, I'm not 100% clear on how this syntax is supposed to
be handled in the general case. There are discussions there about
clipping out the portion of the image, and others that are just
about showing some kind of focus ring around that portion of the
image. That alternate interpretation is the real issue with using
this in url(), imho. What does it mean to show an image with a
fragment identifier?

So I don't disagree with your suggestion, I just disagree with
the premise for it. :)

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 23:05:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT