W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2014

Re: [css3-background] Inconsistencies in background shorthand examples

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:12:15 -0700
Message-ID: <533A126F.20303@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org, Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
On 02/07/2014 05:26 AM, Stewart Brodie wrote:
>
> There are inconsistencies in the examples in "3.10. Backgrounds Shorthand:
> the‘background’property", specifically regarding the background-repeat
> property's value: examples 15 and 18 are different to the other examples.
>
> Example 18 shows multiple comma separated values for the background
> shorthand and describes the values assigned to each individual sub-property,
> using this example:
>
>      background: url(a.png) top left no-repeat,
>                  url(b.png) center / 100% 100% no-repeat,
>                  url(c.png) white;
>
> It explains that for background-repeat, this means:
>
>      background-repeat:     no-repeat, no-repeat no-repeat, repeat;
>
> I think it should be:
>
>      background-repeat:     no-repeat, no-repeat, repeat;
>
> If not, then why not?
>
> This is the shorthand expansion, not the computed value, so the computed
> value (which is "no-repeat no-repeat, no-repeat no-repeat, repeat repeat")
> should not be relevant here and serialization would naturally collapse back
> to "no-repeat, no-repeat, repeat" anyway (quotes used only to delimit value
> from prose!)
>
> Both of the expansions shown in example 15 have the same issue.

Should be fixed now. Take a look?

    http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds-3/

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2014 01:12:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:20 UTC