switch computed style's url(invalid-url:) to [css3-values]'s url(about:invalid)

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla19

Status

()

Core
CSS Parsing and Computation
RESOLVED FIXED
5 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: dbaron, Assigned: ebassi)

Tracking

Trunk
mozilla19
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite ?

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

5 years ago
In computed style, for an invalid URL, nsROCSSPrimitiveValue.cpp sometimes generates url(invalid-url:), because we had to generate something for invalid URLs.  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/ describes url(about:invalid) for a similar purpose, so we should switch this to being about:invalid instead.
(Assignee)

Comment 1

5 years ago
Created attachment 659681 [details] [diff] [review]
Trivial patch switching from url(invalid-url:) to url(about:invalid)
Attachment #659681 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
(Reporter)

Comment 2

5 years ago
Comment on attachment 659681 [details] [diff] [review]
Trivial patch switching from url(invalid-url:) to url(about:invalid)

Perhaps add a comment saying something like:

  // http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#attr-notation defines
  // about:invalid for a similar purpose, so let's also use it
  // here as the computed value for invalid URLs.

Though I wonder if it's an issue that this *does* round trip to something meaningful.  (Might we need to make about:invalid produce a particular empty document?)
Spec says:

  The about:invalid URI references a non-existent document with a generic error condition.
  It can be used when a URI is necessary, but the default value shouldn't be resolveable
  as any type of document. 

So I think the answer to the last part of comment 2 is "no".
(Assignee)

Comment 4

5 years ago
Created attachment 660097 [details] [diff] [review]
new patch, updated after review
Attachment #659681 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #659681 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #660097 - Flags: review?(dbaron)

Updated

5 years ago
Assignee: nobody → ebassi
(Reporter)

Comment 5

5 years ago
Comment on attachment 660097 [details] [diff] [review]
new patch, updated after review

When I asked if it was an issue, I was more worried about "for the Web" than "according to the spec".

But I suppose let's go ahead and do this, even though it's a little weird.
Attachment #660097 - Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 6

5 years ago
setting the checkin-needed keyword as I don't have the level 2 commit bit yet
Keywords: checkin-needed
I don't see a Try link here, so I've pushed it myself. I'll land this if it's green.
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=e29c3fd60ea9
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c01e44583414

Should this have a test?
Flags: in-testsuite?
Keywords: checkin-needed
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c01e44583414
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla19
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.