- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:04:12 +0300
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 22/9/11 04:22, Lea Verou wrote: > This always seemed an unnecessary restriction to me as an author, and > I recall needing a background color in other layers multiple times. > The use cases I've stumbled on, usually fall in one or both of the > following categories: > > a) A semi transparent color with background-image(s) showing through > below it > b) A color clipped with a background-clip value of padding-box or > content-box with background-image(s) clipped with border-box or > padding-box showing through. > > I've had a discussion today with Tab and he encouraged me to raise > this on the list, as: > > a) it hasn't been discussed before (I have to admit I found this kinda > surprising) > b) There are no known implementation issues with shifting this > restriction > c) This restriction was added to the spec before background-clip was, > so the use cases were more limited > > Yes, both use cases can be solved with the image(color) and > cross-fade() syntax, but allowing a background-color in other > background layers is simpler and more straightforward. > I've had a chat with Tab & David Baron yesterday, and we realized that this would introduce a huge backwards-compatibility issue: The background-color property would become a list, and if it functions like other lists, it would break most use cases of multiple backgrounds on the web today. If it doesn't function like other property lists, it would be inconsistent. Therefore, I don't consider this a good idea any more (unless someone can think of a solution to that issue. I can't). -- Lea Verou (http://leaverou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Friday, 23 September 2011 09:04:53 UTC