- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 15:30:38 -0700
- To: Mattéo Delabre ✏ <matteo.delabre@outlook.fr>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Mattéo Delabre ✏ <matteo.delabre@outlook.fr> wrote: > In the current draft, the 4.3.4. section differs from the last version (20 > February 2014). > Here is the 2014 version: > > If the returned string’s value is an ASCII case-insensitive match for "url", > and the next input code point is U+0028 LEFT PARENTHESIS ((), consume it. > Consume a url token, and return it. > > > Here is the current version: > > If the returned string’s value is an ASCII case-insensitive match for "url", > and the next input code point is U+0028 LEFT PARENTHESIS ((), consume it. > While the next two input code points are whitespace, consume the next input > code point. If the next one or two input code points are U+0022 QUOTATION > MARK ("), U+0027 APOSTROPHE ('), or whitespace followed by U+0022 QUOTATION > MARK (") orU+0027 APOSTROPHE ('), then create a <function-token> with its > value set to the returned string and return it. Otherwise, consume a url > token, and return it. > > > The new paragraph implies that > > url(http://example.com/) > > should become an <url-token> with the http://example.com/ value, whereas > > url('http://example.com') > > should become a <function-token> with the url value, followed by a > <string-token> with the http://example.com/ and a <)-token>. > > Is it intended that an url that is enclosed in quotes should now be > interpreted as a function rather than a url token ? Yes, it is. This is so we can treat url() as a normal function (as long as you use quoted strings) and give it additional arguments, such as Fetch parameters or link-integrity stuff. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 4 May 2015 22:31:26 UTC