- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 18:40:50 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `serialization of fragment URLs in image properties`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: no change to URL serialization for fragment-only URLS` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <AmeliaBR> Topic: serialization of fragment URLs in image properties<br> <AmeliaBR> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3195<br> <rachelandrew> this is the Fx issue https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1500958<br> <AmeliaBR> TabAtkins: The question from heycam was whether we want to serialize image url fragments the way we do other fragment-only URLs. The spec currently doesn't distinguish between image types and id reference types.<br> <AmeliaBR> … I think it's a theoretical issue. We can't refer to a fragment-only image. I suggest no change, keep the serialization rules simple.<br> <fantasai> AmeliaBR: I agre, because discussion of eventually allowing SVG paint servers to be used as image types<br> <fantasai> AmeliaBR: in that case we would want them to behave as fragment URLs<br> <fantasai> AmeliaBR: same as referring to mask or filter with a fragment ID<br> <fantasai> AmeliaBR: If we had separate serialization rules and then introduced that, it would become a huge mess<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: OK, hearing even more agreement<br> <AmeliaBR> RESOLVED: no change to URL serialization for fragment-only URLS<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3195#issuecomment-494882821 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2019 18:40:51 UTC