Re: Ambiguities in fill:url() / stroke:url() syntax

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Dirk Schulze <> wrote:

> Does it mean that we have two different behaviors on <img>, <object> and
> <iframe> on the one side and CSS Images on the other? That sounds worst.

No, because <img>, <object> and <iframe> don't use "url()" syntax. They're
simply irrelevant to all of this. The problem is only for users of "url()".

> (Although
> have some polyfill that uses background:url() in Firefox.) So maybe
> the compat issue isn't that bad.
> I would like to see a proposal first before we can continue discussing on
> it further.

I've made a few proposals here. Here's my current proposal:
When "url(...)" appears as a CSS value,
a) if the URI has no fragment identifier, treat it as an image load.
b) if the URI has a fragment identifier that contains the characters '=',
'(' or ')', treat it as an image load.
c) otherwise, treat it as an external resource reference.

And we have not done the research if ::target is the only pseudo element or
> use case for SVG fragments with influence on the painted result.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority
over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among
you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your
slave — just
as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his
life as a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28]

Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 11:37:03 UTC