- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:25:22 +0200
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > > marker-pattern's grammar is wrong - you want "none | [ <length> | > > <percentage> | <marker> ]+". > > > > The grammar is kinda weird, as written. Normally, I'd write this as: > > "none | [ [<length> | <percentage>] <marker> ]#" - a comma separated > > list of gap+marker pairs. This also happens to match the way that > > color-stop lists are written in gradients, which is nice. Is there a > > strong reason to keep the current model? > > > > The rest are fine, but I hate the use of the <funciri> terminology. > > It's completely opaque to the author. Just use the CSS <url> > > production - it's the exact same thing. (This applies throughout > > SVG.) > And again, they are not the same! Dirk is right. The CSS specs should be changed to clearly specify that IRIs are allowed. There were already other discussions about this [1][2]. A quick test (using one in "background-image") showed that all major browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari) already support IRIs. So I suggest you replace the <url> definition by <iri> throughout the specs and give a clear definition of what it implies. Sebastian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0772.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0590.html
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 05:25:51 UTC