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

Re: [CSS3] Some thoughts about functions, notation and gradient().

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:44:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4A8E0A0B.2050701@terrainformatica.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Andrew
> Fedoniouk<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>> Say you have set of existing styles that you carefully crafted in years. And
>> now you've got UA that started to support, say, background-size.
>> It is just enough for someone or even for you to change background-size in
>> default style and you will need to update bunch of other rules to suppress
>> it.
>> Having function that allow you to define the set as a whole plus existing
>> mechanism allowing to redefine particular attribute will give you more
>> choices
>> of making better and stable designs.
> You do know that all shorthand properties reset unspecified properties
> to their default value, right?

I do. But:

"The ‘background’ property is a shorthand property for setting *most* 
background properties at the same place" [1]

Note that "most". Sounds promising now and for the future, isn't it?

> A new type of background property that gets added to the shorthand
> won't have any effect on your older code.

It is already not so. Not all of background-*** attributes can be 
defined by the 'background' shortcut.

And yet just discovered another funny inhabitant of that lists-zoo in CSS:

E { background: #CCC url("metal.jpg") (100% auto) no-repeat top left }
(spotted in [1])

I am wondering what these '(' and ')' are doing there. And where this 
notation is actually defined.

People, this is just a plain mess really.

Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 02:44:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:28 UTC