- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:23:21 -0700
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
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 UTC