- From: Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:19:20 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote: > > Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: >> >> >> >> Bert Bos wrote: >> >> > But to answer the question about the comma: We wanted to preserve the >> > possibility of adding arguments to the url(), e.g., >> > url(http://example.com/,cookie=hfdh455f). >> >> That is (IMHO) a horribly ugly syntax; the delimiter >> needs to be tall if it is to be obvious, and a semi-colon >> would be far clearer to the reader than a comma (which >> actually looked like a period in the e-mail, and only >> became a clear comma when I replied using a monospaced >> font). > > A better future extension would be URL fallbacks, imo: > > background-image: url(image.svg, image.png, image.gif, image.jpg); > > ~fantasai As I think this feature would indeed be very useful the comma AFAIK is a special character in an URI (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html Appendix A) and so theroretically would clash with the above syntax, would it not? The only simple alternative I could think of that would fit into the existing CSS conventions would be a simple space separated list which may even be a nice alternative anyway: background-image: url(image.svg image.png image.gif image.jpg); Any opinions? christof
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 20:21:00 UTC