W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2010

Re: unchanged values status

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:11:42 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTi==n3Hz2_0_ObgDfafbXHE3p9PcC2e1_4g2rfAu@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Célian Veyssière <celian.veyssiere@yahoo.fr>, www-style@w3.org
i'm catching up on a month's worth of mail (which accumulated during
my vacation).

>> a {
>>  background-position: 0 0;
>> }
>> a:hover {
>>  background-position: unchanged -50px;
>> }
>> a:visited {
>>  background-position: unchanged -100px;
>> }

personally, i'd want "inherit" instead of "unchanged" since "inherit"
exists in css today.
(this isn't an endorsement for the proposal.)

> Typically, this is solved by breaking up the components into
> subproperties, when we consider it sufficiently worthwhile to do so.
> (Every property that exists imposes a memory cost on pages, so we try
> not to be *too* profligate with them.)

yeah, having looked at the proposed expansions for some other things
recently, that splitting absolutely terrifies me.

> In the case of properties that take multiple comma separated values,
> we definitely need a syntax for targetting only a particular item from
> that list.  That would make it a lot easier to, for example, change
> just a single background layer or a single text-shadow.
Received on Sunday, 10 October 2010 14:12:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:32 GMT