- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 14:32:45 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 5/6/11 2:09 PM, fantasai wrote:
> The #xywh thing is a generic extension to URL syntax. It's not a CSS
> thing. (And it is not, in fact, defined by this draft.)
I'm pretty worried about deployment here.
> Yes, that would show the sprite in new UAs. I put examples of this in
> the spec, I don't understand how this is not clear?
It's clear; I was just raising it as a point of concern.
>> The spec draft sounds like this would work for url() too; that seems
>> like it might cause behavior changes in existing pages...
>
> Like what?
Like any page that happens to have a ref on its image urls for whatever
reason.
Basically, this proposal is taking and existing syntax and giving it a
new meaning. This always carries compat risks.
>> And things get really interesting if the image is an SVG, where a ref
>> already means something entirely different.
>
> Presumably such refs match the identifier syntax
Why would we presume that?
Try loading this in your browser:
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<defs>
<pattern id="xywh=10,30,60,20" width="1" height="1">
<rect width="100" height="100" fill="green"/>
</pattern>
</defs>
<rect width="500" height="500" fill="url(#xywh=10,30,60,20)"/>
</svg>
Works for me in Gecko, WebKit, Presto, IE9.
Basically, I think the media fragments draft is not backwards-compatible
with current behavior and thus I think that using it should require
explicit opt-in.
> and therefore there
> is no ambiguity as to which was meant.
See above.
>> It may be worth it to allow the new syntax inside image().
>
> It is already allowed? *confused*
I missed an "only".
-Boris
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 18:33:14 UTC