- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:02:50 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
* 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. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 21:03:17 UTC