- From: Slalomsk8er <slalomsk8er@solnet.ch>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:33:49 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Laurens Holst wrote: > > Matthew Raymond wrote: > >> Ben Ward wrote: >> >> | background-color: blue; >> | background-color: gradient(blue, red, 90deg); >> > > > The cascading can in theory make it degrade well as Matthew pointed > out, but: will authors specify a fallback colour? For every author > that doesn’t, the page is probably impossible or very hard to use on > browsers that don’t support those gradients. So, the syntax would at > least need to inherently provide a fallback, like: > > background-color: blue; > background-color-gradient-to: top-bottom red; > > Because of the above mentioned reason, this is a better syntax than > gradient(). > > Of course, this doesn’t necessarily prevent a gradient colour function > from appearing in CSS, but they are certainly not arguments in favour, > and show that even a thing that seems so simple needs to be thought > out thoroughly... > > > ~Grauw I don't think this is needed as the background-colors default is |transparent so it will look like a "normal" box but if you are a webmaster and do a gradient not from or to transparent, then I hope you did set a |background-color like Ben wrote. But where is the problem? As long as the content can be read and the page does not look like in a candyshop (this can happen with background-color-gradient-to:) it does not bother me. With background-color: blue; background-color-gradient-to: top-bottom red; how can I get it to look clean (background-color: |transparent;|) if the browser fails know the gradient? It is a design nightmare if the background-color is always part of the gradient! Dominik
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 21:33:40 UTC