- From: Ron van den Boogaard <ron@ronvdb.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:45:12 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:21:22 +0300 "Emrah BASKAYA" <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote/schreef: > >On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:26:10 +0300, David Woolley ><david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>> the image. It is a problem in case the image doesn't load (as it is >> >> Or can't load. >> >> That's exactly why it doesn't fail gracefully. >> > >It fails gracefully, as when you specify a stand-in color, that css code >is ignored by older browsers, which can earlier be fed the proper >background, I'm giving the example again, just in case. > >background: red; >background: transparent standincolor(red) url(foo.png); > >Is something wrong with this? Or are you for: >background: red; >background: red onbgimageload(transparent) url(foo.png); > >Or you are not for any of these solutions? I would like to hear why this >wouldn't degrade gracefully. isn't this already covered with background-color: red; background-image: url(f00.png); seems to me that if the image wouldn't load it would fall back on background-color I fail to see the point of introducing a new property that already seems to be covered unless I am really stupid Ron van den Boogaard http://tangogarden.blogspot.com > >-- >Emrah BASKAYA >www.hesido.com > -- http://www.tango42.com Nieuw, Frisser, Leuker, Tikkie brutaler. Dating
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 21:45:29 UTC