- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:30:24 -0700
- To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. We're not going to change the name, because <iri> is a stupid name that nobody outside some rarified standards circles ever uses. The thing that you use for links is called a URL in common and most technical parlance. I have no problem with clarifying the definition if necessary, particular if it's merely to reflect current implementations. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 06:37:52 UTC