- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:34:06 -0800
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: > On 20/01/2011 3:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Alan Gresley<alan@css-class.com> wrote: >>> Does this not work. >>> >>> background: url(example.svg), url(example.png); >> >> No, that's specifying multiple background images, which is a >> completely different feature. It means that you want to download and >> display both of them, with the example.svg on top. > > From a spec point of view that maybe correct but from an authors point of > view, this is a way to serve a SVG background-image to a browser that > supports SVG in background-image and allow the other browsers to just show > the PNG (IE9 does not support SVG in background-image). That is why the SVG > is on top. As Brad points out, no, this is not a general solution to that sort of problem. If the top image has any transparency it doesn't work. I don't believe we should be promoting hacks like this. > Regarding <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#image-notation>: > > # The ‘image()’ notation allows an author to specify multiple images, > # each one a fallback for the previous. > > > You may want to reword the later part as: > > | The ‘image()’ notation allows an author to specify multiple images, > | each one as a fallback for the previous. I believe my wording is correct English, and should mean the same thing. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 17:35:00 UTC