- From: Faruk Ateş <faruk@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:03:55 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:41 PM, fantasai wrote: >> 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). > > Agreed. sprite() is much preferable to extending url(). > >> How about background-image: <url> <x> <y> <width> <height> ; > > No. a) That'd create parsing ambiguities in the background shorthand > and > b) It doesn't allow use of sprites for other things like list- > style-image. In that case (responding to both bits above), the sprite() functionality should probably be defined as _overriding_ any url() values that might be set, or it might get really convoluted. Doing so would also mean good backwards compatibility, e.g.: background-image: url(foo.png); background-image: sprite(my_sprite.png, 10px, 20px, 10px, 11px); Browsers that support the sprite() value would use the sprite image for the background instead of the url()-specified one. It'd be similar to rgb() and rgba(). - Faruk
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 21:04:37 UTC