- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:51:17 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Brad Kemper wrote: > On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:27 AM, David Hyatt wrote: > > I agree that it is not particularly useful to have a fallback for > background-color. Ever for rgbs colors, a UA that doesn't support it > seems unlikely to support the newer fallback format. This kind of underscores my point about the syntax being unobvious -- because as I understand it, the proposal _isn't_ about offering a fallback for the _colour_, but about offering a fallback for when the _image_ isn't available, in the case where the author desires to only have a background colour when the image is absent, because normally the image would set the background colour and it just happens to be transparent in some parts. ...which is so complicated to explain that I agree with hyatt about just removing it. I don't expect people to even _understand_ how to use it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 21:51:54 UTC