W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2001

Re: CSS2 errata - border backgrounds

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:22:57 -0400
Message-ID: <3B576BD1.F2461E71@escape.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
ValerieGSharp wrote:
> 
> fantasai wrote:
> >
> > 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?

This is precisely why I'd rather have 0 0 at the top left of the
padding edge.

Consistency goes either way. And even though CSS1 explicitly paints
borders on top of the background, with the current state of browser
implementations and CSS2 wording, I think it would be easier to
correct the one passing mention of background in the border area in
8.5.3 than the five (or six) instances of just content & padding.

Browsers tested: 
  Mozilla - inconsistent between image(14.2) & color(CSS1)
  MSIE 5.5Win, MSIE6b - inconsistent between tables (14.2)
                        & blocks(CSS1)
  Opera - inconsistent between image(14.2) & color(CSS1)
  Amaya - consistent--follows 14.2

CSS2 Sections affected:
  14.2 x 3 (4?) places, 8.1, 17.5.1 vs. 8.5.3
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 19:24:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT