- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:43:25 -0700
- 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... ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 18:44:03 UTC