W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2015

Re: [whatwg] A mask="" advisory flag for <link rel=icon>

From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:29:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAO9Q3iKQzwrRCJuM88z77LTksRBcMRyoMMWTa=-mvgpEq+JmYQ@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:33 UTC