W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: About multiple backgrounds' syntax

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:23:21 -0700
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C275DC58-E526-4AD6-95FD-4742F5E7E476@gmail.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
I agree that the syntax is non-intuitive and cumbersome. But the need  
is real: images should not be required in order to for text to be  
readable, and it is often a contrasting background image (with  
transparent or translucent areas where the page can be seen behind it)  
that allows the text to be readable. There are many cases where  
authors only want the background color if the contrasting background  
images are not available.



On Apr 20, 2009, at 8:49 AM, David Hyatt wrote:

> His twitter is about a specific issue, namely allowing multiple  
> color values in the background syntax.  I have said before I think  
> this is a dumb idea, and current implementations (like WebKit) do  
> not allow this.  I am still hopeful that allowing multiple colors  
> will be scrapped.  It's just a terrible idea.  I believe scrapping  
> it is on the table, since that was one of the issues recently raised  
> in that list that was sent out a few days ago.
>
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>
>> http://twitter.com/Hixie/status/1561236395
>>
>> I have to agree with Hixie: this is one of the poorest
>> syntaxes ever designed in the WG. So unintuitive.
>>
>> </Daniel>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 21:48:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:46:58 GMT