- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:19:18 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Ryan Cannon <ryan@ryancannon.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Ryan Cannon wrote:
>
> I believe this lack of versioning/support testing is going to be the
> critical problem in CSS3 gaining widespread adoption. While !required is
> a good idea, it seems a bit complex. Any reason the @module syntax[1]
> was not picked up? It seems fairly elegant. One use-case could be:
>
> body {
> background-color: white;
> background-image: url('main_bg.png');
> background-position: top left;
> background-repeat: repeat
> }
> @module css3-backgrounds-and-borders {
> body {
> background-image: url('flower.png'), url('ball.png'),
> url('main_bg.png');
> background-position: bottom right, center, top left
> background-repeat: no-repeat, no-repeat, repeat
> }
> }
The above is unnecessary. Just do:
body {
background-color: white;
/* CSS2 */
background-image: url('main_bg.png');
background-position: top left;
background-repeat: repeat
/* CSS3 */
background-image: url('flower.png'), url('ball.png'), url('main_bg.png');
background-position: bottom right, center, top left
background-repeat: no-repeat, no-repeat, repeat
}
...and it'll work exactly as you wanted it to. Any UA that spports the
multiple-value syntax will use the second set, and any compliant UA that
doesn't will use the first set instead.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 21:19:31 UTC