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

Re[2]: Solving the alpha images and background-color problem

From: Ron van den Boogaard <ron@ronvdb.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:45:12 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050813234001.5570.RON@ronvdb.com>


On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:21:22 +0300
"Emrah BASKAYA" <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote/schreef:

>
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:26:10 +0300, David Woolley  
><david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>> the image. It is a problem in case the image doesn't load (as it is
>>
>> Or can't load.
>>
>> That's exactly why it doesn't fail gracefully.
>>
>
>It fails gracefully, as when you specify a stand-in color, that css code  
>is ignored by older browsers, which can earlier be fed the proper  
>background, I'm giving the example again, just in case.
>
>background: red;
>background: transparent standincolor(red) url(foo.png);
>
>Is something wrong with this? Or are you for:
>background: red;
>background: red onbgimageload(transparent) url(foo.png);
>
>Or you are not for any of these solutions? I would like to hear why this  
>wouldn't degrade gracefully.

isn't this already covered with
background-color: red;
background-image: url(f00.png);
seems to me that if the image wouldn't load it would fall back on
background-color
I fail to see the point of introducing a new property that already seems
to be covered
unless I am really stupid

Ron van den Boogaard

http://tangogarden.blogspot.com
>
>-- 
>Emrah BASKAYA
>www.hesido.com
>

-- 
http://www.tango42.com Nieuw, Frisser, Leuker, Tikkie brutaler. Dating
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 21:45:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT