- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:13:30 +0100
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Hello Florian, (replying to original post but yes, I have read the thread) Thursday, March 12, 2015, 6:39:47 PM, you wrote: > In addition to a predefined list of values, the cursor property > allows authors to provide the cursor as an external file, indicated by the url() function. > Unfortunately, the spec makes no mention of which file format must > or should be supported. In general, required file formats are a good thing. The lack of them was the major reason why @font-face took years to get traction, for example. The SVG spec has always mandated support for PNG for cursors, while allowing other formats. (It also originally added a cursor element, just to hold hotspot info and a pointer to the PNG file, because the CSS cursor property at that time lacked hotspot info). So I support mandating some formats. > It would be nice for authors to be able to depend on something, and > for test writing, having no format mandated makes things tricky. Agreed on both counts. > As far as I can tell, all browsers that support this notation > accept the Microsoft .ico and .cur formats (.cur being essentially > the same as .ico, with the addition of pointer hotspot coordinates). Hotspots and a slightly different header, yes. I support requiring cur and ico, including the later version which wraps an RGBA PNG rather than a BMP and mask. (Note that only RGBA PNG is supported inside cur/ico - nor RGB or indexed with tRNS for example). > Given the interop, I think we should include a MUST requirement for > this file format. However, this raise the question of a spec for > that file format. There's this[1], but it describes an older (1995) > version, and then there's a series of blog posts on "the old new > thing" [2][3][4][5]. Is there anything better out there? Not that I have found. Thorough testing would require some sort of decent spec rather than some blog entries. > In addition, all browsers other than IE support the usual image > formats: PNG, JPG, GIF, BMP as well as SVG. I think it would be > useful to push (at least with a should, preferably with a must) for > at least some of these in css3-ui. I'd favor PNG and SVG, but I'm > happy to include more if there's consensus. I agree that (PNG, and SVG in secure static integration mode) is a good starter set. Or we could mandate the lot and then trim back by making each of them at-risk in CR, and see where we end up. I'm putting together tests for various formats; the tests assume all the above (and ani) are mandated. Its easy to delete tests for any formats we decide not to mandate. @Microsoft - a W3C Member submission would be one way to document the cur/ico/ani formats. If that is of interest, feel free to contact me offlist (since I would likely be writing the staff comment on the submission anyway). -- Best regards, Chris Lilley, Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 15:13:34 UTC