- From: ValerieGSharp <ValerieGSharp@netscapeonline.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 21:05:50 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote: > > 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. <...> Being consistent is good, but do we really want to lose the start of background images (tiled or otherwise) under any border that might be present? -- Regards, Val Sharp - Edinburgh
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 16:09:35 UTC