W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Proposal for CSS3.5

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:43:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4C8141CD.6030909@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 09/01/2010 10:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> The problem you describe is more general than just backgrounds; it is a similar
>> situation for any property that takes a comma-separated list (including box-shadow,
>> for instance).
>> A solution I would like to see that does not involve constants or variables would
>> be to be able to leave blank spots in the list (astride the commas) to be able to
>> leave those slots unchanged. So for instance, this:
>> .twoClass { background-image: , url(other.png), ; }
>> ...would change the second image only, and keep the other two from whatever they
>> were before in the cascade. Essentially, keeping them as if you had retyped them
>> in yourself. If there was a fourth item on the list, the above rule would still
>> override that image, because of the number of commas.
> Or even better, just some explicit way to target a particular subitem
> of a list.  I don't like implications about "keeping things".
> .oneClass { background-image: url(one.png), url(two.png), url(three.png); }
> .twoClass { background-image[1]: url(other.png); }

I think this makes a lot of sense, but the use of brackets in a property name
is inconsistent with the core grammar...

Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 18:44:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:50 UTC