On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Waldemar Kornewald <wkornew...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, I just went through django-mediagenerator to check if there's > anything else needed by staticfiles and I noticed that we need to have > a standard for URLs in CSS files (e.g., url(image.png)). > > Since we don't know the STATICFILES_URL in our CSS code we have to use > relative paths when referencing images. When CSS files get combined > the resulting file is often in a different folder than its source > files. This will break relative paths. Now we have these solutions: > 1. keep URLs untouched when combining > 2. rewrite URLs relative to source files > 3. rewrite URLs relative to the combined file's path > 4. rewrite URLs relative to STATICFILES_URL > > URL rewriting would convert relative paths to absolute URLs beginning > with STATICFILES_URL. > > (1) is the easiest solution and it might be used by very simple asset > managers. This approach is also used by quite a few CSS and JS > frameworks (e.g. jQuery UI). Disadvantage: It only works if the > combined CSS file is in the same location as its source files. > > (2) is very intuitive because it behaves exactly like with uncombined > files. Disadvantage: URL rewriting is inconsistent if you also support > CSS compilers like Sass because the URLs used in imported files would > be relative to the master file. This means imported files have to make > assumptions about the master file's location which is very confusing > and bad for reusability. > > (3) is too confusing and makes too many assumptions about the combined > file's location which is confusing and bad for reusability. > > (4) is the most consistent solution. No matter whether you use a CSS > compiler or normal CSS files or something else, URLs always behave the > same. Disadvantage: At first you might expect different behavior, so > it's quite not as intuitive as (2), but it's very easy to understand > once you know what it does. Also, it doesn't have any of the > disadvantages of (2). > > IMHO, (4) is the best solution because it's consistent. (2) is the > second best solution. It should be easy to adapt the code in > django-mediagenerator and make a little patch for staticfiles, so it > behaves like (4). What do you think? > > In any case, staticfiles would need to rewrite URLs in its view, too. > Otherwise we can't provide a consistent solution across all asset > managers.
Since this is pretty important and it would be great to have in the alpha release, what do you need to be able to make a good decision, here? Bye, Waldemar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
