- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:29:00 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style@w3.org
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:29:59 UTC
On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:06 PM, fantasai wrote: > David Hyatt wrote: >> Yeah, I think a new property like text-fill (that does most of >> what backgrounds do) might be better than what I've implemented. >> In WebKit, I've already split text drawing into filling and >> stroking (with a separate text-fill-color property). If that fill >> color became part of a larger shorthand, that might work. > > Well, the point of the separate color is for it to behave as a > fallback > if the image fails to load. text-fill-color implies to me that the > color > will always be applied. With backgrounds, it is a fallback if the image isn't available, or it can show in places where there is no image (due to no-repeat, for instance, or partial image transparency. I don't see any reason for there not to be a a "text-fill" shorthand that combines "text-fill-color", "text-fill-image", text-image- position", "text-fill-repeat", and "text-fill-attachment". Basically a direct equivalent of background. You could still have "color" as a fallback for UAs that didn't support "text-fill". Am I missing something? I don't think I would want it to apply to the text-shadow though. That would be really inconsistent with the way color normally works on text.
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:29:59 UTC