On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: > There are multiple definitions of what is a valid URL/URI/IRI: I would love to have a single good reference that matches reality. I know the RFC we currently point to doesn't fit that definition. I'm hoping the URL spec from abarth will. > 1. Make the value and thus the declaration/rule invalid. The cascade does > its usual fallback. Just like only some HASH tokens are valid hexadecimal > <color> values, only some URI tokens would be valid <url> values. > > 2. Have them resolve to an invalid URI that always fails to be fetched. As > with an HTTP 404 error, other fallbacks occur (list-style-type is used > instead of list-style-image, ...) > > 3. Make sure that all Unicode strings are parsable/valid. (I don’t know if > this is doable *or* a good idea.) #1 isn't doable - URLs are a potentially moving target. I'm fine with not checking their validity at parse-time. #2 is great. We just need an "always-invalid URL" to resolve it to, like "about:invalid" or something. #3 isn't doable - CSS doesn't need to get into the game of defining what's a valid URL. All Unicode strings should be valid *syntactically* in CSS, but they may or may not represent a valid URL that actually makes a request. ~TJReceived on Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:15:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC