- From: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:56:38 +0000
- To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/16/06, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote: > I'm not sure it's all that inconsistent actually. For example, when > you specify multiple fallback fonts, you are creating a situation > where a run of text could render with glyphs from any or all of the > fonts in the list. > Very interesting, I'd not thought about it like that. However, whilst fonts do allow more subtle fallback than the all-or-nothing behaviour of images, it's still fundamentally fallback behaviour, very different from specifying multiple background-images to be displayed together. Accepting that fonts are a more complicated and subtle beast, I think perhaps the bigger problem lies with the 'content' property fallback, which is identical to the syntax of background-image. Closely related, is there currently a mechanism for specifying fallback background-images? If there isn't, perhaps such fallback would be a better use of the comma syntax on background-image, with something new (&) for multiples. Otherwise, adding such fallback later will definitely require a different character separator altogether (and different again from the content fallback). That _will_ be messy. Regards, Ben
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 13:56:49 UTC