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

Re: Multiple Background Images

From: Staffan Mhln <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:20:31 +0100
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <41AE197F.12911.3D0B42@localhost>

On 30 Nov 2004 at 20:29, fantasai wrote:

> 
> Staffan Mhln wrote:
> > default style:
> > body {background-image: url(img1), url(img2); background-repeat: repeat-x, repeat-y}
> > 
> > author style:
> > body {background-repeat: no-repeat}
> 
> That would result in the same cascaded values as
> 
> body {
>    background-image: ulr(img1), url(img2);
>    background-repeat: no-repeat;
> }
> 

Assuming that you mean that the background-repeat of the second image is modified 
to the initial value, eg "repeat", are you still saying this cascades as easily as any other 
cascade example? (not that this is a big problem or anything, just not sure i am reading 
you correctly).

I think that similar examples such as the old key-equivalent proposal and possibly the 
'content'/'counter-increment'/'counter-reset'/'quotes' properties uses a different syntax 
as a side note. Those are perhaps simpler since they do not need to match with other 
properties, and since each value in their lists cannot already be "multi-valued" like 
background-position.

If the idea behind this is just to avoid a few extra elements in content, i personally don't 
think its worth it. 

Finally, should we expect other properties that can require extra elements to be 
arrayed in addition to the background-X ones? (Multiple borders and outlines seems 
like potential use cases for instance? But then again, would a list of 1 to 4 values make 
sense?)

 /Staffan
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:21:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:35 GMT