W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [css-background] Order of properties in background shorthand

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:26:20 +0200
Message-ID: <20120601112620.232810@gmx.net>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
>> So what I get out of this discussion is that the order, in which a
>> browser returns the properties of a shorthand property via 
>> getComputedStyle(), is not dictated. Is that correct?
> 
> It really depends on the property.
> 
> For example, these two declarations:
> 
>    font: 12px Times;
>    font: Times 12px;
> 
> are not equivalent.  The former is valid, and the latter is not.
Right. Of course for other shorthand properties like "margin" there is also a specific order defined. So instead of "a shorthand property" I should have written "this shorthand property".

> As another example, these two declarations:
> 
>    font: 12px bold Times;
>    font: bold 12px Times;
> 
> are both valid, but don't mean the same thing.  The former means a 
> normal weight 12px font of the "bold Times" family, while the latter 
> means a bold 12px font of the "Times" family.
Well, font was always a special candidate. I was following the discussion about keywords in unquoted font family names [1]. 

> What the spec does not dictate is the order in which things separated 
> by "||" in the "Value" line are serialized.
Ok. So when there is no predefined order for the values the question is just why the order of the existing properties was changed in the current spec and UAs like Firefox make the efforts to change the order when it's not necessary (and obviously unwanted due to the response the Firebug team got from different sides).

Sebastian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0630.html
-- 
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 11:33:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT