- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:50:07 +0200
- To: David Zülke <dz@bitxtender.net>
- CC: 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
> background-1-image: url('foo.png');
> background-1-position: left top;
> background-1-repeat: repeat-x;
>
> etc?
I thought of this syntax, but didn't post it because it looks very bad.
Especially since you need to define some new grammar. The '-{number}-'
part is never used before in CSS. (Maybe because you create a infinite
number of properties this way.)
> z-indexes are calculated as usual, i.e. the last background image is the
> topmost one.
This is different. Since 'z-index' calculated normally relies on the DOM
of the styled document, no? It would make /some/ sense if the highest
number was the lowest background. So 'background-1-image' would be on top.
> If you want to explicitely specify a z-index:
> background-1-z-index: 4;
> You'd need to have for all of them to display as indended, I propose, to be
> consistent with the "normal" z-index for elements, where the fourth element
> doesn't have a z-index of 4, either, if it hasn't been assigned a z-index.
>
> I don't see any implementation problems here. Of course, background-image
> should be available for BC.
Although it is backwards compatible in terms of authoring, UAs probably
have to rewrite their code for backgrounds to deal with this. It would
be quite a large change if it was introduced like this.
Creating test cases for it would be even more difficult.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Saturday, 28 August 2004 17:50:31 UTC