W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2005

Re: [css3-background] comments

From: Barry <wassercrats@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:12:54 -0400
Message-ID: <BAY102-DAV6A454C29C19F79F44F995B9300@phx.gbl>
To: <www-style@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> * 5. The 'background-image' property

> # An image that is empty (zero width or zero height), that fails to
> # download, or that otherwise cannot be displayed (e.g., because it is
> # not in a supported image format) has the same effect as a non-empty
> # transparent image.

> Wouldn't it be easier to specify that if an image can't be displayed the
> initial value should be used instead?

I think the current specification is better. "Initial value" isn't completly 
clear, and it doesn't say whether it should be an additional layer or 
whether the "background image" should be ignored. Maybe it's the same thing, 
but it might not always be.


> # If 'background-repeat' or 'background-position' has more
> # comma-separated values than 'background-image', the series of values
> # is repeated as needed.

> As the editor's note already mentioned, it makes more sense for
> 'background-image' to determine the number of layer and let all the
> extra values specified be ignored.

I don't even know what the specification means. 
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2005 16:12:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:36 GMT