W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Fallbacks

From: Anne van Kesteren (fora) <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:05:08 +0200
Message-ID: <407ECED4.9050406@annevankesteren.nl>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-style@w3.org

>>>You want all the background-* properties to be linked?
>>
>>Yes, I think so.

I think I misunderstanded you. I didn't want them to be linked that way, 
but I understand they kind of "must" be linked that way since the 
shorthand 'background' property is really multiple properties from a 
browser/DOM kind of view?

> So what does:
> 
>    background-image: url(404), url(404);
>    background-color: blue;
> 
> ...do?

Since my intention was that this is different from:

   background:blue url(404),url(404);

I would say the that 'background-image' results to its initial value (I 
don't look up the specs right know, but I expect that happens when the 
resource can't be found).

And 'background-color' results into 'blue', the only option given, which 
is probably supported. If 'background-color' would read:

   background-color:blue,lime;

It would still have been 'blue', since the browser supports that and 
doesn't have to fall back.

> What about:
> 
>    background-image: url(white), url(black);
>    background-color: white, black;
>    color: black, white;
> 
> ...? Should 'color' be linked to background-* as well?

   background-image:url(white);
   /* assuming that isn't a 404 image */
   background-color:white;
   color:black;


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 14:05:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:29 GMT