Re: [CSS3] Some thoughts about functions, notation and gradient().

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Andrew
> Fedoniouk<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>> Say you have set of existing styles that you carefully crafted in years. And
>> now you've got UA that started to support, say, background-size.
>> It is just enough for someone or even for you to change background-size in
>> default style and you will need to update bunch of other rules to suppress
>> it.
>> Having function that allow you to define the set as a whole plus existing
>> mechanism allowing to redefine particular attribute will give you more
>> choices
>> of making better and stable designs.
> 
> You do know that all shorthand properties reset unspecified properties
> to their default value, right?

I do. But:

"The ‘background’ property is a shorthand property for setting *most* 
background properties at the same place" [1]

Note that "most". Sounds promising now and for the future, isn't it?

> 
> A new type of background property that gets added to the shorthand
> won't have any effect on your older code.
> 

It is already not so. Not all of background-*** attributes can be 
defined by the 'background' shortcut.

And yet just discovered another funny inhabitant of that lists-zoo in CSS:

E { background: #CCC url("metal.jpg") (100% auto) no-repeat top left }
(spotted in [1])

I am wondering what these '(' and ')' are doing there. And where this 
notation is actually defined.

People, this is just a plain mess really.

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com

Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 02:44:50 UTC