W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

Re: background-clip and background-origin question

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:55:10 -0800
Message-Id: <0E7599A8-EF79-455A-BF0C-47DF9CFF8CF0@gmail.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "tao.yu@nokia.com" <tao.yu@nokia.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>



On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:00 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 01/19/2011 02:44 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 1/19/11 3:20 PM, tao.yu@nokia.com wrote:
>>> background-clip: border-box;
>> ...
>>> IE8 behaves this way, but some other browsers
>>> (Chrome/Safari/Opera v11) still paint both background-color and
>>> background-image behind the dashed border.
>> 
>> Doesn't Webkit still have a vendor prefix on background-clip? And
>> isn't that expected, since CSS3 Backgrounds is not in CR yet?
> 
> CSS3 Backgrounds did hit CR, and got pulled back to LC for some edits.
> It has been stuck in procedural red tape since early November. But
> since it did hit CR and none of the features were revoked for the LC,
> dropping prefixes is valid.
> 
> (W3C needs a CR errata process that doesn't invoke WD.)

Yes, and Webkit did support many un-prefixed properties from b&b3, but in the latest nightlies that no longer seems to be the evident, at least in the case of border-image and a couple others. 
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 23:56:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT