- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:57:35 +0200
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
David Woolley wrote: >> Also, I think it might be better to turn it around - not specify the >> ‘onimageload’, but the ‘whileimagenotloaded’ (standin-color() sounds >> like a better name), if you understand what I mean. After all, if all >> > No. That doesn't fail gracefully. Eh, how? I’d say for a client that doesn’t support it, according to the CSS error handling rules it should ignore the property as a whole...? And even if a client interprets the color and just ignores the supposed standin-color() value, then it would show the background that belongs to the image. It is a problem in case the image doesn’t load (as it is right now), but the alternative in such a case is to have a messed-up background when the image *does* load. Which is basically the reason why I thought turning it around would be more ‘logical’. Anyways, this is just hypothetical as a client which doesn’t support standin-color should, as said, just ignore the entire property. ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 11:57:33 UTC