- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:47:11 +0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: W3C Public Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
(Cc -all +www-archive) (12/07/17 3:18), fantasai wrote: > (12/04/08 18:19), Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: >> (edge cases) >> >> CSS 2.1 has this sentence >> >> # User agents may vary in how they handle invalid URIs or URIs that >> # designate unavailable or inapplicable resources. >> >> which was removed in CSS3 V&U last August[1]. I can't find discussions >> about this, in particular anything about invalid URIs, in the archive, >> but I'll provide some data out of testing at the end of this mail, which >> may or may not support this removal. Note that, the spec now says >> >> # When a <url> appears in the computed value of a property, it is >> # resolved to an absolute URL, as described in the preceding >> # paragraph. >> >> and it doesn't say what to do when this is not doable, and RFC 3986, >> which is referenced, has plenty of these. > > This was defined in some other random section of CSS2.1: > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#computed-value > # The computed value of URIs that the UA cannot resolve to absolute > # URIs is the specified value. > > I've now copied this over into css3-values. Let me know if this > addresses your comment. Yes. > IIRC, the advice we received was to continue referencing RFC3986 for now. > So that's what we're doing. That's fine by me given that the above sentence is in css3-values now. >> Another URI-related question is the 'url' type parameter in attr(). The >> spec says >> >> # The default is a UA-dependent URI defined to point to a >> # non-existent document with a generic error condition. (i.e. it >> # shouldn't be an FTP URI that causes a DNS error, or an HTTP URI >> # that results in a 404, it should be a nondescript error condition.) >> >> Can we use something UA-independent, say, "about:blank" or something >> else in the 'about' scheme? (Cced public-irc for this purpose) > > We've registered 'about:invalid' for this purpose and included it in > the spec. > > Let me know if these responses are satisfactory. Yes. (I'd hope I don't need to answer Accept-ish response though.) Cheers, Kenny
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 17:47:44 UTC