Re: [css3-background] Contradiction regarding equivalence of failed images and 'none'

L. David Baron wrote:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-color says:
>   # The color after the slash, if present, is used instead of the
>   # first color in the case the element's specified bottom-most
>   # background image, if any, cannot be drawn. This color is called
>   # the fallback color.
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-image says:
>   # A value of ‘none’ counts as an image layer but draws nothing. An
>   # image that is empty (zero width or zero height), that fails to
>   # download, or that cannot be displayed (e.g., because it is not
>   # in a supported image format) has the same effect as ‘none’.
> 
> The second paragraph contradicts the first.  If an image fails to
> download or cannot be displayed, the fallback color should be used,
> so it is not the same effect.
> 
> However, something should specify in exactly which of these cases
> the fallback color is used, since "cannot be drawn" is rather
> ambiguous.

I've revised
   "cannot be drawn"
to
  "fails to load or cannot be displayed (e.g. because it is in an
   unsupported format or is corrupted in some way)"
and replaced
   "has the same effect as 'none'"
with
   "likewise counts as a layer but draws nothing"

Let me know if this addresses your comment.

~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 03:37:09 UTC