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

Re: [svg2] request for review of new SVG properties

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:42:32 +0200
Message-ID: <50518E68.8020402@kozea.fr>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 13/09/2012 08:30, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Sebastian Zartner
> <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dirk is right. The CSS specs should be changed to clearly specify that
>> IRIs are allowed. There were already other discussions about this
>> [1][2].
>> A quick test (using one in "background-image") showed that all major
>> browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari) already support IRIs. So
>> I suggest you replace the <url> definition by <iri> throughout the
>> specs and give a clear definition of what it implies.
>
> We're not going to change the name, because <iri> is a stupid name
> that nobody outside some rarified standards circles ever uses.  The
> thing that you use for links is called a URL in common and most
> technical parlance.
>
> I have no problem with clarifying the definition if necessary,
> particular if it's merely to reflect current implementations.

I think that Dirk was not asking to rename <uri> to <iri>, but only 
clarify the definition and make <uri> accept IRIs, not just ASCII URIs. 
With that, it becomes the same as <funciri> SVG and they can be unified.

(The separate issue remains of deciding what unicode strings exactly CSS 
considers a "valid IRI/URI" and what to do with the other ones, but 
that’s for another thread, as Sebastian noted.)

-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 07:43:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT