- From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:26:31 -0800
- To: Faruk Ateş <faruk@apple.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Faruk Ateş <faruk@apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > > PS: Just because I can, an easy solution would be nothing more than > > a "sprite( url, xstart, xlength, ystart, ylength)" value that could > > be used anywhere the url() syntax is allowed to specify a picture. > > This simple solution isn't ideal in a few ways, but it would be *as > > usable* as the current hack, and add the powers that I described > > above which the hacks currently lack. Implementation would be > > roughly similar to Webkit's current handling of CSS gradients. > > Hmm, you're right, I see your point. In essence, you want to > define x1, x2, y1, y2 explicitly and have the browser ignore all > other parts of the sprite image. That does make sense. > > In lieu of backwards compatibility though, perhaps a sprite(…) value > could instead be done as such: > > url( <path> [, <x1, x2, y1, y2>] ); You shouldn't introduce new stuff inside url(), everything from the u to the close parenthesis is *one token*, it'll be a nightmare to implement (it already is; it should never have been specified that way in the first place). How about background-image: <url> <x> <y> <width> <height> ; zw
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 20:27:14 UTC