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

Re: My Reply to a CSS3 multiple background image question by Ian Hickson

From: Kiarra Parker <excellencepersonified@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:48:13 -0500
Message-ID: <BAY15-DAV799FDC0C04988D87020A5F4BD0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <41AB8B0D.5050803@hotmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

It appears that didn't get sent well.  Reattempting..

Hello,

I rather like the idea of

foo
{
background-image: [ <background-color> || <'background-image'> || 
<'background-repeat'> || <'background-attachment'> || 
<'background-position'>] | inherit;

/* Aside from the first, all properties above are not applied,
superceded by the following */

background(1): [ <'background-image'> || <'background-repeat'> || 
<'background-attachment'> || <'background-position'>];

background(2): [ <'background-image'> || <'background-repeat'> ||
<'background-attachment'> || <'background-position'>];

background(3): [<'background-image'> || <'background-repeat'> ||
<'background-attachment'> || <'background-position'>];

background-z-index: 1, 3, 2; /* 1 on top, 3 in the middle, 2 in the back */
}

That, or every background attribute repeated with (n) behind it.
Eventually, that would give designers the most power, it is not
difficult to understand, and it's everything we want rather than a
limited compromise.  Except control over opacity, visibility, clipping
and such, but that's more than single backgrounds have anyway. Immediate
downside is of course that it will be bulky if multiple backgrounds are
used.

"background url() url(e) url() url(w); background-z-layer e:1 w:0;" is
confusing and strange. There are URLs in each 'url()', aren't there?
Perhaps something like "background: e = url();" would make more sense if
we use that method.  It accomplishes the same purpose as "background(1)"
with different syntax.  Personally, I wouldn't prefer it.

>basically if I could get a cool way of
> placing those pictures relative to the page, but also some distance
> from the left or top anchor points.
>
I don't think we should worry about positioning images relative to the
page, just to the box they're in.  There would be way too many images
flying around pages outside of their boxes otherwise.  Perhaps clipping
should be forced, then.  It's enough that boxes are positioned relative
to the boxes around them; backgrounds are just that, backgrounds for
their boxes.

Regards,
Kiarra
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 20:49:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:34 GMT