- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:21:13 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:19:20 +0100, Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de>
> wrote:
>> background-image: url(image.svg image.png image.gif image.jpg);
>>
>> Any opinions?
>
> I quickly tested Opera 9.x and Firefox 3 and it seems that unquoted URIs
> containing spaces are dropped and unquoted URIs containing commas are
> not. So the above would work better for at least those UAs...
>> Anne, what does "dropped" mean ?
>
> Same as "ignored", "doesn't end up in the CSSOM", etc.
>
> body { background:url(image) }
> body { background:url(x x) }
>
> would show "image", and not "x%20x", as background image.
OK, but would not any half-intelligent parser,
on being presented with either
background-image: url(image.svg image.png image.gif image.jpg)
or
background-image: url(image.svg, image.png, image.gif, image.jpg)
and with an /a priori/ knowledge of the extend syntax,
first parse at the macro level ("identify URI separators
and/or terminator") before passing the resulting entities
to the URI parser module ? In which case, the behaviour
of the (micro-level) URI parser is not relevant, is it ?
Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 22:21:33 UTC