2013-06-07 11:13, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
The '#' is a perfectly valid url so any decent browser will recognise the rule
block.
That exactly is the problem with it. It passes CSS validation, but it
will not work.
Something like this:
.a { background: url(#) 20px 20px no-repeat; }
.a { background-image: url(/_img/image.png); }
In this case, no harm will be done. But url(#) does not do any good
there either, and should be removed.
If you use background: url(#) with the intent of later replacing # by
the real URL, the style sheet will pass CSS validation even if you
forget to do the replace.
Using e.g. background: url would not have this problem. But background:
??? would probably be safer, because then the incompleteness is rather
clear even to the human eye.
And of course, the whole issue should be avoided by arranging things so
that such "placeholders" are not needed.
Yucca
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [[email protected]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
