- From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:30:06 -0600
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 20, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > 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. This should just be cut from the draft.
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 23:31:01 UTC