- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:40:25 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 13, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: > 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. That is correct. I am fine with replacing <funciri> with <url> and just want to state that the definition of <url> should be updated to support IRI in general. I won't be able to attend the next meeting. I would like to have it clarified in one place in the long term (CSS values and units?). For the moment I would be fine if the CSS WG can resolve that all affected specifications add a short sentence with clarification in the "Values" section (currently Filter Effects, CSS Masking, SVG and possibly CSS Exclusions). Greetings, Dirk > > (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 09:41:03 UTC