- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 18:22:42 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On May 6, 2011, at 4:05 PM, fantasai wrote: > To be fair, I'm not 100% clear on how this syntax is supposed to > be handled in the general case. There are discussions there about > clipping out the portion of the image, and others that are just > about showing some kind of focus ring around that portion of the > image. That alternate interpretation is the real issue with using > this in url(), imho. Yeah, yuck! Maybe it is up to CSS to decide what to do with the identified fragment when used in CSS? On May 6, 2011, at 3:48 PM, fantasai wrote: > (On a related note, the Media Fragments WG needs to specify what happens > when the fragment identifies coordinates that are not within the image > bounds.) I would hope for transparent pixels where the fragment exceeds the image bounds. Seems like that could be useful, even.
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2011 01:23:43 UTC