- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:36:21 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20040907193621.GA4147@darby.dbaron.org>
On Tuesday 2004-09-07 11:48 -0700, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> Analyzing CSS2.1 and CSS3 ([1],[2]) I've found that rules
> for url defintion does not include '/' character.
>
> So, following given rules:
>
> url ([!#$%&*-~]|{nonascii}|{escape})*
> "url("{w}{url}{w}")" {return URI;} ,
>
> url(images/background.png)
>
> cannot be treated as a valid URL. May it is better to define first rule as
> url ([!#$%&*-~/]|{nonascii}|{escape})*
> ?
'*' is U+002A, '~' is U+007E, and '/' is U+002F, which is in the range
[*-~]. So your assertion that it's not a valid URL is incorrect. (And
if you're not treating '-' within character sets as a character range
operator, then letters aren't valid either.)
> And what about whitespaces? Following rules above:
>
> url(my background.png)
>
> is also not valid as it contains whitespace in the middle.
True.
> Is this limitation make sence?
If it's implemented interoperably, I don't see a good reason to change
it at this point. Is it not implemented interoperably?
-David
--
L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 19:37:04 UTC