W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Regarding Comma Separation

From: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:56:38 +0000
Message-ID: <ef5d0f2f0601170556v2a0fcc5id59177e209313b1f@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/16/06, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure it's all that inconsistent actually.  For example, when
> you specify multiple fallback fonts, you are creating a situation
> where a run of text could render with glyphs from any or all of the
> fonts in the list.
Very interesting, I'd not thought about it like that. However, whilst
fonts do allow more subtle fallback than the all-or-nothing behaviour
of images, it's still fundamentally fallback behaviour, very different
from specifying multiple background-images to be displayed together.

Accepting that fonts are a more complicated and subtle beast, I think
perhaps the bigger problem lies with the 'content' property fallback,
which is identical to the syntax of background-image.

Closely related, is there currently a mechanism for specifying
fallback background-images? If there isn't, perhaps such fallback
would be a better use of the comma syntax on background-image, with
something new (&) for multiples. Otherwise, adding such fallback later
will definitely require a different character separator altogether
(and different again from the content fallback). That _will_ be messy.

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 13:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:22 UTC