- From: Josef <e9427749@student.tuwien.ac.at>
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:45:41 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Alan Gresley wrote:
> content: "hello" / url(hello.png);
> background: blue / url(hello.png), url(goodbye.png), transparent;
>
> The fall back to the left I think is more intuitive for authors. Also
> using commas would mess with multiple background strings. This would
> be better.
>
For me it is too ugly.
And this seems very restricted and not orthogonal in the first place, also.
Worth to mention:
Why
background: red;
bachground: url(hello.png), url(goodbye.png), transparent;
dont work.
Ok.. I see for background it does not work, because
it would interpreted ala
background-color: ...; background-image: ...
Anyway, here a idea with i think is better:
background: url(hello.png),..., transparent,fallback(blue);
Try "background: url(hello.png),..., transparent"=B9 first
and if this can not be done, try
background: <stuff inside fallback()>
If a browser support multiple fallback then more left fallback
came before, but all fallback() are tried only after the
regulary.
ad 1) background: <stuff without any fallback clause>
fantasai wrote:
>> The other important one that needs fallbacks is 'content', we're
>> handling that by making it take a comma-separated list of values.
>>
>> content: url(hello.png), "hello";
At least the fallback() should work here also.
sorry 4 my bad english & hopefully not completely wrong,
josef
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 08:15:04 UTC