- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Dave Shea <dave@mezzoblue.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Dave Shea wrote: >>> >>> Do you have a better proposal? I haven't fully thought this through yet. >> >> I think that when image within a "serie" could not be found, the next >> "serie" (separated by commas) should be used. If none such serie exists, >> as with all the examples from Boris, "contents" should be used instead >> (as final fallback). That was what I was considering, the problem is in the details. Should a lone url() always be a replaced element? Should text-followed-by-url be allowed to fallback on a single url? Should text on its own be allowed to have a fallback (which would always be ignored)? Should it always default to fallback on 'contents' if there is a url in the last "serie"? > What about allowing page author choice between this, and all-or-nothing? Well, that will always be possible, since you could always say 'none' is the fallback. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 13:44:54 UTC