- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:41:04 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
Replying on-list, as requested. Christoph Päper wrote: > *fantasai* <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>: > > First of all, I don't think the comma is the best choice, because it's > already used in CSS for lists of ordered, mutual exclusive items. The values in font-family aren't mutually-exclusive except on a character- by-character basis. Similarly, the values in image backgrounds aren't mutually-exclusive except on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Providing multiple image formats would be, imho, best served by either content negotiation or a url() syntax that can accept fallbacks. >> background-image: url(foo), url(bar); >> background-repeat: repeat-y, no-repeat; > > > Would "bar" be visible at all with > > background-repeat: repeat, no-repeat; If bar is partially transparent, yes. > How can I set a property for the n-th background only? I don't think you can. Do you have a good use-case for it? > Who needs multiple backgrounds for one box anyway? Designers who are currently inserting extra <div>s to do the job. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slidingdoors/ avoids adding extra <div>s because the elements being styled in this particular use case are already paired up and the design only requires two images. (<a> + <li>) ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 01:08:48 UTC