- From: Staffan Måhlén <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:20:31 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On 30 Nov 2004 at 20:29, fantasai wrote:
>
> Staffan Måhlén wrote:
> > default style:
> > body {background-image: url(img1), url(img2); background-repeat: repeat-x, repeat-y}
> >
> > author style:
> > body {background-repeat: no-repeat}
>
> That would result in the same cascaded values as
>
> body {
> background-image: ulr(img1), url(img2);
> background-repeat: no-repeat;
> }
>
Assuming that you mean that the background-repeat of the second image is modified
to the initial value, eg "repeat", are you still saying this cascades as easily as any other
cascade example? (not that this is a big problem or anything, just not sure i am reading
you correctly).
I think that similar examples such as the old key-equivalent proposal and possibly the
'content'/'counter-increment'/'counter-reset'/'quotes' properties uses a different syntax
as a side note. Those are perhaps simpler since they do not need to match with other
properties, and since each value in their lists cannot already be "multi-valued" like
background-position.
If the idea behind this is just to avoid a few extra elements in content, i personally don't
think its worth it.
Finally, should we expect other properties that can require extra elements to be
arrayed in addition to the background-X ones? (Multiple borders and outlines seems
like potential use cases for instance? But then again, would a list of 1 to 4 values make
sense?)
/Staffan
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:21:58 UTC