- From: Faruk Ates <faruk@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:12:59 -0800
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Faruk Ateş <faruk@apple.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Can't we just use the usual last-setting-wins, > ignore-properties-with-unrecognizable-value rules for that? That's essetially what I meant, yes. Sorry, I should have specified that more clearly. >> background-image: url(foo.png); >> background-image: sprite(my_sprite.png, 10px, 20px, 10px, 11px); > > I am opposed to changes that introduce new places where you don't have > to put quotation marks around a URL, as each such place requires > special-casing in the grammar. (Also, "," can legitimately appear in > a URL.) Either of > > sprite(<string>, ...) > sprite(<uri>, ...) > > would be fine, with <string> my preference to minimize typing. I like David's proposal for syntax, which also alleviates your concern I believe: background: image(url(foo.png), 25, 25, 300, 300); I wonder if "image()" is too ambiguous though? The thing I like about "sprite()" is that its name implies a distinct image area as part of a larger image. Faruk
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2009 21:13:49 UTC