- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:58:41 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
> >>> On 23 Mar 2015, at 18:10, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> E) I have not yet written tests for hotspot position (apart from >>>> merely parsing the values in the CSS), but plan to. >>> >>> That would be very useful, especially with regards to clamping. > >> Also, this little sentence opens up for a bunch more tests (with "may" in the meta flags): >> "Agents may, instead of <url>, support <image> which is a superset." > Before doing so, is there any data on current implementations which > actually implement that optional behaviour? (I know, the best way to > determine that would be from test results, which needs approved tests, > which needs ...) > >> - cursors with gradients >> - cursors with image-set() >> - cursors with cross-fade() >> - cursors with image() > >> Of course, just because you've been nice enough to write a bunch of >> tests for cursor doesn't mean that you have to write all the >> remaining tests for cursor, but if you feel like doing more, that >> could be worth looking into. > > :) > > If no browsers currently support that, I would assign a low priority. > > If one browser is supporting it, or has said that they are working on > it, then it would have a higher priority. > > If two or more are, then the spec should up that to a "should". I have not run tests on that topic, but I don't think there is much support. However, I know that at least one vendor (either webkit or blink, might have been both) had indicated interest in at least adding support for image-set(). - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 12:59:05 UTC