- From: Guillaume via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:03:04 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Thanks for the links. It's interesting to have these historical details. So Firefox uses the order defined in the title of the definition of `background` in CSS2. I think I missed the field *canonical order: by grammar* , which I think implicitly defines the following order: | Position | CSS3 | CSS2 | | -------- | ----------------------- | ----------------------- | | 1 | `background-color` | `background-color` | | 2 | `background-image` | `background-image` | | 3 | `background-position` | `background-repeat` | | 4 | `background-size` | `background-attachment` | | 5 | `background-repeat` | `background-position` | | 6 | `background-attachment` | `background-size` | | 7 | `background-origin` | `background-origin` | | 8 | `background-clip` | `background-clip` | I might not have opened this issue otherwise, sorry. But this field could also be defined explicitly to make its interpretation less ambiguous in some cases. For example, for `border`, its grammar gives the order` border-<side>-width`, `border-<side>-style`,` border-<side>-color`, but the `<side>` order is only defined in prose of the corresponding shorthands (`border-width`, `border-style`, `border-color`). -- GitHub Notification of comment by cdoublev Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6894#issuecomment-1003110233 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 30 December 2021 17:03:06 UTC