Skip to content

Should "background-image options" really be a "use"? #107

JustinAngel opened this Issue Jan 25, 2012 · 3 comments

4 participants


It's got less <70% overall adoption with IE8 (and under) not supporting it. I'm not sure if ignoring 30%+ of web users is really an option for most devs. It really depends on what the bar html5please uses to determine "use" vs. "avoid". Is there such a numeric boundary or precedence?

Would it make sense to change it to "caution"? Maybe add a link to some of the more common hacks recreating "background-image options" in older browsers? I don't think there's a polyfill for that could replicate with reasonable fidelity "background-image options" in IE8, which is why I'm suggesting "caution" vs. "use with polyfill".

H5BP member
Raynos commented Jan 25, 2012

Sure they can be used. They just don't work in legacy browsers.

The thing about background images is that they are easy to do with graceful degration or with progressive enhancement. They are basically little CSS tweaks that add polish for modern browsers but don't add anything that older browser need to have.

I think it's valid to have websites look ugly but functional in oldIE

H5BP member

Yeah the fallback story is whats important. If css transitions was only in 1 browser it'd still be a use because the fallback story is so easy.

@nimbupani nimbupani pushed a commit that closed this issue Jan 26, 2012
Divya Manian Updating to mention fallback. Fixes #107 39dd3b9
@nimbupani nimbupani closed this in 39dd3b9 Jan 26, 2012
H5BP member

@JustinAngel yes that is the intention here, we do not want people to avoid using some feature just because it does not render pixel perfectly in all browsers. As long as the fallback is graceful. I added a 'fallback' to the term list. But I would certainly not advice polyfill for something that is very presentational.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.