- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:28:57 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>That sounds fucked up. Deciding the fetching policy based on the >>presence of a fragment identifier in the URL is a severe layering >>violation. What if we introduce a fragment identifier to crop an >>image? > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-images/#image-notation proposes a `image(...)` > functional notation that can be used where `url(...)` does not suffice, > and SVG 1.0 and http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/ already provide such > functionality, which can be used in combination with `image(...)`. I've > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Mar/0190.html argued > that there should be an example using `image(...)` in the masking draft > to avoid this particular confusion. Even so that would still mean CSS will have this fragment identifier presence determines processing behavior bug. Clearly a new syntax should have been used for masks, e.g. mask(url)... -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 14:29:31 UTC