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

Re: [css3-images] exactly 2 adjacent colors stops

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:37:52 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTin8HLC7_nywMa-QDO5e+FdzzVkcsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> > A file called blue...
>> > - background-image: image("blue");
>> >
>> > The color blue...
>> > - background-image: image(blue);
>> >
>> > Is this correct?  If so, I wager we'll be debugging web pages doing
>> this wrong for the next 10 years.
>>
>> In practice, who actually creates image files named after colors
>> without an extension?
>
> My concern is less about whether people do that "normally" and more about "why doesn't my page work" sending people in circles until someone in the zip code near the web author realizes the quotes are the problem.
>
> And yes, people actually do such things.  Usually they have "css" in the URL address.

Well, there's not much use in using image("url"), when url("url") is
two characters shorter (four if you omit quotes, which you're allowed
to do in url() but not in image()).

That doesn't mean people won't still do it, of course.  We could
potentially make it more obvious, at the cost of increased verbosity.
image(url(blue)) is clearly different from image(blue).  Or we could
extend the microsyntax with something like image(url "blue").  (I'm
potentially interested in something like this for a clearer fragment
syntax.)

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 18:38:39 GMT

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