- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:08:12 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > 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. > Yes, I types that without recalling the syntax correctly, or looking it up. It is completely nonobvious. If it is a fallback for url, it should be grouped with URL more, instead of with bg color. Too bad we can't use commas to specify fallback images, the way we do for font- family. Because then you could just list several different files, starting with an svg perhaps and ending with a color if none of the files loaded or were in an unsupported format. But that would require a different way to do multiple backgrounds, such as with a plus sign or pipe instead of a comma. > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E ) > \._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _ > \ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'-- > (,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 23:10:15 UTC