Re: My Reply to a CSS3 multiple background image question by Ian Hickson

I personally do not understand the sacred idea of the multiple 
backgrounds...

... anyway just to keep stuff simple:

Wouldn't it be enough to have foreground-image attribute with all set of 
other foreground-*attributes similar to background-* ones?

If this will be accompanied with background/foreground-repeat:expand [1] 
then I think will solve any reasonable use case.

If we will have foreground-image then we will be able to cover in CSS 
rendering of <IMG> element.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Aug/0097.html



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kiarra Parker" <excellencepersonified@hotmail.com>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: My Reply to a CSS3 multiple background image question by Ian 
Hickson


|
| It appears that didn't get sent well.  Reattempting..
|
| Hello,
|
| I rather like the idea of
|
| foo
| {
| background-image: [ <background-color> || <'background-image'> ||
| <'background-repeat'> || <'background-attachment'> ||
| <'background-position'>] | inherit;
|
| /* Aside from the first, all properties above are not applied,
| superceded by the following */
|
| background(1): [ <'background-image'> || <'background-repeat'> ||
| <'background-attachment'> || <'background-position'>];
|
| background(2): [ <'background-image'> || <'background-repeat'> ||
| <'background-attachment'> || <'background-position'>];
|
| background(3): [<'background-image'> || <'background-repeat'> ||
| <'background-attachment'> || <'background-position'>];
|
| background-z-index: 1, 3, 2; /* 1 on top, 3 in the middle, 2 in the back 
*/
| }
|
| That, or every background attribute repeated with (n) behind it.
| Eventually, that would give designers the most power, it is not
| difficult to understand, and it's everything we want rather than a
| limited compromise.  Except control over opacity, visibility, clipping
| and such, but that's more than single backgrounds have anyway. Immediate
| downside is of course that it will be bulky if multiple backgrounds are
| used.
|
| "background url() url(e) url() url(w); background-z-layer e:1 w:0;" is
| confusing and strange. There are URLs in each 'url()', aren't there?
| Perhaps something like "background: e = url();" would make more sense if
| we use that method.  It accomplishes the same purpose as "background(1)"
| with different syntax.  Personally, I wouldn't prefer it.
|
| >basically if I could get a cool way of
| > placing those pictures relative to the page, but also some distance
| > from the left or top anchor points.
| >
| I don't think we should worry about positioning images relative to the
| page, just to the box they're in.  There would be way too many images
| flying around pages outside of their boxes otherwise.  Perhaps clipping
| should be forced, then.  It's enough that boxes are positioned relative
| to the boxes around them; backgrounds are just that, backgrounds for
| their boxes.
|
| Regards,
| Kiarra
|
|

Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 21:35:18 UTC