- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:13:37 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> Well, IMHO you'd want the fallback at the outside for consistency with
> other such things in CSS, so it would look more like:
>
> binding: url("b1.xbl") url("b2.xbl"), url("b1.htc") url("b2.htc");
>
> ...but I agree with the idea.
Yeah, that would probably be more backwards compatible with
Microsoft's "behavior" property, so I guess that's fine. This also
addresses the possibility that you may be using similar but not
identical components for different binding languages on account of the
fact that you may be using bindings made by other people. So this would
be possible:
| binding: url("abc1.xbl"), url("a1.htc") url("b1.htc") url("c1.htc");
However, what happens if one binding succeeds, but another fails?
Hmm. I suppose that you'd have to have a pattern of "a b c, a b c",
where "a" falls back to "a", et cetera...
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2006 02:13:57 UTC