- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:33:31 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 21/06/13 09:43, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Vsevolod Vlasov <vsevik@chromium.org> wrote:
>> TLDR: I'd like background-image: url("") to have the same behavior as
>> background-image: none; in CSS.
>
> That would be a weird and invasive change for such an obvious
> implementation bug. "" is a perfectly valid relative url, and it's
> certainly possible for it to evaluate to an image, or anything else.
> It seems pretty clear that we should just fix the error in Blink, not
> spread a hack around the issue to CSS itself.
Absolutely. Content negociation makes it possible to reply
an image to that URL. It really seems you're trying to fix
a browser-specific issue with a global hack.
</Daniel>
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 11:33:58 UTC