- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:42:32 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 13/09/2012 08:30, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > 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. I think that Dirk was not asking to rename <uri> to <iri>, but only clarify the definition and make <uri> accept IRIs, not just ASCII URIs. With that, it becomes the same as <funciri> SVG and they can be unified. (The separate issue remains of deciding what unicode strings exactly CSS considers a "valid IRI/URI" and what to do with the other ones, but that’s for another thread, as Sebastian noted.) -- Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 07:43:02 UTC