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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 21:43:33 -0800
Message-Id: <A5EDBFFB-8C07-4829-B05C-8909270665DB@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>

> On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:40 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.

Now that you mention it, I think it would be even more clear if examples 17 and 18 were more like example 15, and showed the computed values for background-repeat. That is, with horizontal and vertical pairs for each layer.
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2014 05:44:02 UTC

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