- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:52:31 -0800
- To: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Friday 2009-02-20 15:08 -0800, Brad Kemper wrote: > 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. I started working on a proposal a few years back for doing multiple background layers, fallback, and gradients using at-rules: see the Gradients and Patterns section of http://dbaron.org/css/css-vg/ . But I gave up working on it because (1) it became clear I wouldn't be able to displace the multiple background layers mechanism in the current draft (which I don't much like, and thus delayed implementing for quite a while, although I landed support in Gecko yesterday), (2) we gave up and just shipped SVG support, and (3) I didn't really have time. (I think it was probably a mistake for background-* to ever be separate properties; I think it should be a single property, and the multiple backgrounds thing just makes that mistake a lot more complicated.) (And for the record, I believe both Dave and Ian were present at the meeting where the working group designed the fallback background-color mechanism. I think it was done at the meeting in October 2004 in Mountain View.) -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 00:04:56 UTC