Re: transparent backgrounds

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, George Lund wrote:
> Thanks - I hadn't seen / didn't remember that thread.  As a search for 
> codependency reveals only 9 articles, I suspect a lot of the discussion 
> was carried on outside the public list (?). 

Well, I may have overstated that a little... I call it property
codependency, everyone else calls it "the problem with not specifying
backgrounds" and "user stylesheets clashing with my absolute positioning".

> At one point several years ago I vaguely remember suggesting the idea
> of having an @depend block construct, where all the rules within it
> would be ignored if any were overridden or didn't make it into the
> final layout for whatever reason.  I've no idea whether that ever got
> considered and rejected so - there we are - I'll mention it again.

Yes, that's one of the many proposals. It doesn't work because there is no
way to define "overridden or didn't make it into the final layout for
whatever reason". For instance:


      @depend {
         p { background: black; color: yellow; }
         p > span { color: white; }


      p + p > * { color: silver; }


      <p>Test <span>Test</span> Test</p>
      <p>Test <span>Test</span> Test</p>

What colour should the text be?

> Meantime I think CSS 3 should be explicitly removing 'transparent'
> from the list of values unless this problem is solved.

The problem with transparent is _minute_ compared to the bigger
codependency problems.

> I do reckon all W3C specifications should at least have the
> possibility that they can be implemented!

What can't be implemented?

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 18:26:16 UTC