Why custom properties don't work with the url() CSS function

Custom properties and CSS parsing are always good for surprises like !important behaving slightly differently or properties being "invalid at computed value time".

Today I discovered yet another surprise — custom properties don't work in combination with the url() function. 😲

.something { /* this doesn't work */ --image: "https://jo.com/image.jpg"; background: url(var(--image)); } 

Roman Dvornov describes the details quite well in a GitHub issue, but let me give you a condensed explanation.

Your url()-containing CSS will be parsed differently, depending on how you use url(). There's an old and a newer way:

• Old: url(https://jo.com/image.jpg)
• Newer: url('https://jo.com/image.jpg') or url("https://jo.com/image.jpg")

The problem of the legacy url() token

And these missing quotes of the old way might seem like a tiny detail, but they affect how your CSS is parsed.

Without quotes, the url() syntax looks like a CSS function, but it isn't. CSS parsers will treat it as a single token, a so-called url-token.

.something { background: url(https://ja.com/image.jpg); // \---------------------------/ // without quotes this ☝️ is // a single CSS token } 

And this entire token from url( to the closing ) enforces parentheses, whitespace characters, single quotes (') and double quotes (") to be escaped with a backslash.

If you're curious, here's how url() is parsed in this scenario.

url() with a quoted string, on the other hand, is a normal and flexible CSS function notation, which is parsed part by part and works as expected.

But now, guess what happens when you want to use a custom property in combination with url()?

.something { /* this doesn't work */ --image: "https://jo.com/image.jpg"; background: url(var(--image)); // ☝️ "No quotes? Cool, that's a url-token!" // 😢 "Too bad though, `(` isn't allowed in here..." // ❌ "I'll throw everything away!" } 

Because there are no quotes, this declaration is parsed as a url-token. And unfortunately, the ( in var(--image) isn't escaped, so the parser throws an error and invalidates the entire CSS declaration.

And this legacy url-token parsing is why you can't use custom variables inside of url().

How can your work around the url-token problem then?

First, you can restructure your code and move the url() function into the custom property declaration itself. The following work just fine! 🎉

.something { --image: url(https://jo.com/image.jpg); background: var(--image); } 

Additionally, the CSS spec maintainers added a new alias to remove the url-token behavior. The src() notation behaves the same way as url() but without this weird legacy url-token logic.

.something { /* this works! (theoretically) */ --image: "https://jo.com/image.jpg"; background: src(var(--image)); } 

Unfortunately, no browser supports src() (I couldn't find browser support information but tested current Chrome, Safari and Firefox) yet, so it's time for us to wait. 🤷‍♂️

CSS parsing and custom properties — always good for a surprise!

If you want to read more about this topic, here are some resources:

• Roman Dvornov's stellar explanation of this topic
• The spec defining src() and url()
• The spec change adding the src() alias