Re: fallback color for background-image (ISSUE-5)

On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:51 PM, David Woolley wrote:

>
> Patrick Garies wrote:
>
>> Feel free to clear things up; if you were saying that a subsequent  
>> h1 rule (or a previous !important h1 rule) could override a  
>> previous (or a subsequent) @missing h1 rule, you’re, of course,  
>> right, but then that would simply be an authoring issue, rather  
>> than an issue with the proposal.
>
> In overriding it, it could introduce an image that was fetchable, or  
> cancel the need for an image, resulting in inappropriate workaround  
> for the missing image.

So? You're saying that an author could cause unnecessary images to be  
fetched if they write their style sheets poorly? Nothing new there.

> Authors cannot avoid this because, in practice the cascade allows  
> the user to override them in ways that they cannot control, and, in  
> principle, they should not be relying on their style sheet not be  
> affected by other author style sheets.

If a user chooses to override rules in such a way as to prevent images  
from loading, then I don't see any reason why this would prevent that  
from working.

Currently, in practice, if an author has to choose between whether a  
page looks good for most people or if it looks good for those who  
override certain aspects of the author styling, they are going to  
chose the former. But at least with this proposal they can provide a  
better experience for those who have disabled images.


> PS please do not request read receipts on public mailing lists; it's  
> an invasion of privacy.  (In this case, the list software seems to  
> have disabled the receipt request in the version actually sent to  
> the list, but you cannot rely on that.)

Oh, brother. Lets keep this to technical issues and not to extreme  
ideological issues that don't affect anyone.

> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 15:07:53 UTC