- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:23:47 +0000
- To: public-houdini-archive@w3.org
> This URL will always be either absolute, or a bare hash. If fragment-only URLs are going to have different behavior, should the type object have a boolean attribute indicating whether it is an absolute URL or a fragment? > people rarely, if ever, pull properties between documents anyway, and if they do, they probably don't expect their URLs to change! SVG `<use>` elements from another file effectively pull in URL references, including absolute and fragment-only references, both of which are expected to remain relative to the original document. (And Chrome has broken things a few times in the past year or so as things switched to shadow DOM model.) Even same-file hash references aren't fully defined for a shadow DOM model. I tried to summarize intended behavior [in the SVG spec](https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/struct.html#UseShadowTree), but it would be nice to have a more universal model to build on. > I also need a CSSURLValue, subclass of CSSStyleValue, representing the url() syntax. All url()s are reified as this, because in some cases we can't tell what type a url() should resolve to until after we fetch it, > ... > In the next level we'll add a CSSURLImageValue, subtype of CSSImageValue, which you can obtain from a CSSURLValue (either thru a constructor, or a promise-returning method, or something) I think the one thing that is missing from your model is a way to distinguish an _unresolved_ URL from a resolved URL that isn't an image type. Maybe that could be indicated by an attribute (`resolved = true`), or maybe the unresolved URL would be its own type (`CSSUnresolvedURLValue`), which has a method or attribute to access the Promise that returns the resolved type object, whether that's a `CSSImageURLValue` or some other type that subclasses `CSSURLValue`. > CSSURLValue details: > ... > - will have a constructor that takes a URL Does it make sense to have a constructor for the "unresolved" type? Should the constructor accept a class name of the type you're trying to resolve as? Or, to be able to fully model the behavior of `mask-image` and so on, a list of types in order? -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/716#issuecomment-369370718 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2018 20:23:51 UTC