- From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:29:15 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Justin Dolske <dolske@mozilla.com>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Justin Dolske <dolske@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > Hmm, I suppose Elliott's proposal is a bit ambiguous, but I read it as > > fixing the ordering issue by adding a separate "mask" rel value. Such > that > > the following are equivalent and independent of ordering: > > > > A) <link rel=icon href=colorful.png><link rel=mask href=black.svg> > > B) <link rel=mask href=black.svg><link rel=icon href=colorful.png> > > > > And if someone actually did want the same icon for both, they could do: > > > > C) <link rel="icon mask" href=blackhole.svg> > > That isn’t how I interpreted Elliot’s proposal. > > That said, if we do make a new standalone rel value for mask icons, I > would suggest "mask-icon" or something like that instead of "mask", since > mask is too generic a term. > I'm fine with either interpretation, mask-icon or "icon mask" like "alternate stylesheet". I don't think adding a mask attribute to the HTMLLinkElement for this makes sense. - E
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 20:30:22 UTC