W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [css3-images] [css3-background] Image/media fragments and cropping

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:59:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBcc2LqqL2EmogzKxE0nYzrNemCJRP8f2G5Upen6dDHRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 2012/11/9 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>:
>> I suggest sending this feedback to the Media Fragments WG, then.  I'd
>> prefer not to add an explicit fragment syntax to CSS unless/until we
>> determine that MF is broken and won't be fixed in a reasonable
>> timeframe.
> The CSS WG is concerned only because it makes a direct reference to
> the MF just because of the presence of a fragment identifier, without
> even knowing if that URL is referencing a media and where to locate
> it.

This feedback is still appropriate for Media Fragment WG, not us.

> Bote that your definition just makes a mere use of the <uri>
> definition, which is completely blind to document content-types (which
> may also not be specified by the target of this URI).
> A glue is missing, and in fact this suggests developping a common
> Media Access API, that both the CSS specification and the MF WG would
> reference. For now the only existing glue is the URI, it is clearly
> NOT enough. An URI does NOT have by itself the properties of a media.
> You need something to create a reference to a media (this exists in
> HTML with the <image/> or <video/> element, and HTML could also make
> use of this common Media Access API, where the URI is ONLY one of the
> necessary properties and methods to support).

In CSS, the context in which you encounter the <url> is sufficient to
establish the same information.

> The MF just conscentrates on defining a specific encapsulation scheme
> wihin some classes of URI, it does not say that this is the proper way
> to reference the document containing them, that an HTML browser would
> first need to know how to load and cache, preferably by using the
> common API, rather than by trying to download the URI itself.) The URI
> for downloading the image from within a source is not in the scope of
> the MF WG (and it may need to another layer of encapsulation of the MF
> URI).
> Do you see my point ?

This should be addressed to the Media Fragments WG.

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 20:00:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:05 UTC