- From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:47:59 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Yves Lafon wrote: > > In [1], I found the following example: > > > > background-image: image(wavy.svg, 'wavy.png' 150dpi, "wavy.gif" or > > blue); > > > > Should it be image( url(wavy.svg), 'wavy.png' 150dpi, "wavy.gif" or > > blue); ? ... > > > > Depending of the intent, it would be good to either add a url() or > > to require quotes. > > Thanks, > > CSS3 modules are not required to conform to the CSS2.1 Appendix G > grammar, only to the core grammar in Chapter 4. Therefore this is not > an issue. A CSS2.1 parser will parse the functional notation as > invalid, which is expected. However, this production introduces another special case in the tokenizer and therefore should, IMO, be changed as Yves suggests anyway. (I think I said this the first time image() was suggested.) zw
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 17:48:51 UTC