W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: fallback color for background-image (ISSUE-5)

From: Josef <e9427749@student.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:45:41 +0200
Message-ID: <47F6A185.4050105@student.tuwien.ac.at>
To: www-style@w3.org

Alan Gresley wrote:

  > content: "hello" / url(hello.png);
  > background: blue / url(hello.png), url(goodbye.png), transparent;
  >
  > The fall back to the left I think is more intuitive for authors. Also
  > using commas would mess with multiple background strings. This would
  > be better.
  >
For me it is too ugly.
And this seems very restricted and not orthogonal in the first place, also.

Worth to mention:
Why
   background: red;
   bachground: url(hello.png), url(goodbye.png), transparent;
dont work.

Ok.. I see for background it does not work, because
it would interpreted ala
background-color: ...; background-image: ...


Anyway, here a idea with i think is better:
background: url(hello.png),..., transparent,fallback(blue);

Try "background: url(hello.png),..., transparent"=B9 first
and if this can not be done, try
       background: <stuff inside fallback()>

If a browser support multiple fallback then more left fallback
came before, but all fallback() are tried only after the
regulary.


ad 1) background: <stuff without any fallback clause>

fantasai wrote:
 >> The other important one that needs fallbacks is 'content', we're
 >> handling that by making it take a comma-separated list of values.
 >>
 >>   content: url(hello.png), "hello";

At least the fallback() should work here also.

sorry 4 my bad english & hopefully not completely wrong,
    josef
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 08:15:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:04 GMT