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

Re: Fallbacks

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:16:49 -0700
To: "Anne van Kesteren (fora)" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BCA41F47.3BF7F%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

BTW, my original proposal (re: background) wasn't an attempt to add
fallbacks to *all* properties, merely those which would get us the biggest
bang for the buck.

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Apr/0113.html

Specifically, with background, the proposed examples demonstrated a way to
extend the background property to be more than just a shorthand, and in a
backward compatible manner (since "," is not currently allowed in the syntax
for 'background').

My point was that perhaps there are a *few* other properties that could be
similarly extended to allow for fallbacks (start with the properties that
allow url values for example, since those would benefit the greatest from
fallbacks, hence my retitling of the thread as "url() fallbacks (was Re:
content: url() is bad)").

Tantek



On 4/15/04 11:05 AM, "Anne van Kesteren (fora)" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
wrote:

> 
>>>> 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;
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 14:16:47 GMT

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