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

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

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 13:40:20 +0000
Message-ID: <52F4E244.2070203@exyr.org>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/02/2014 13:26, Stewart Brodie wrote:
> 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?


The example says "is equivalent to", which I think is technically 
correct. "no-repeat no-repeat" and "no-repeat" are equivalent within one 
comma-separated part.

However, I think this trick does not help the reader, and the example 
would be better as you say it should be.

-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 13:40:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC