- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:54:25 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, fantasai wrote: > > Bert Bos wrote: > >> An erratum for 14.2 already exists. > > > > Is there a reason why it does not change this? > > > > <blockquote > > cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/colors.html#propdef-background-image"> > > If a background image is specified, this property specifies > > whether the image is repeated (tiled), and how. All tiling > > covers the content and padding areas of a box. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > </blockquote> > > Why should it? Because it's inconsistent to apply one type of background only to the padding edge while the other kind of background stretches to the border edge. It should be either all one or all the other. The 'background-attachment' definition also needs to be changed. In all, there will be five changes to the CSS2 spec for this-- six if you want to redefine 0 0 as the top left of the border edge. (This is not necessary, and I don't particularly recommend it.)
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 04:55:41 UTC