Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > background-position should be defined in such a way that it takes the > resulting size of the image into account and not be based on the > original size of the image. A line saying that references to the > dimensions of the image refer to the size after background-size has been > applied would suffice I think. For -o-background-size we currently > implement the non-intuitive version and are planning to change this. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-background-20050216 I'll make this change unless Bert objects. Bert, do you object? :) ~fantasaiReceived on Friday, 16 November 2007 23:24:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT