Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color-5] What is the computed value of light-dark(none, none)? (#13866)

I oppose removing `none` for the following reasons:

> This means that `light-dark(url(foo.png), none)` will be a valid value. The `none` keyword is equivalent to `linear-gradient(transparent)`, but is more intuitive.
> 
> This also makes conditional checks in `@supports` more concise:
> 
> ```css
> @supports ( background: light-dark(none, none) ) { }
> ```

-----

> > FWIW Firefox doesn't support none in `light-dark()` for this reason, and the discussion in [#12513](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12513) and above seems to indicate it's not so trivial to consider `none` an image everywhere.
> 
> Hm. It looks like it's supported in Firefox nightly with this case?
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <style>
>   div {
>     background-image: linear-gradient(green);
>     background-image: light-dark(none, none);
>     width: 100px;
>     height: 100px;
>   }
> </style>
> <div></div>

Additionally, please note that `light-dark(none, none)` has been shipped in Firefox 150.   
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2023569



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by yisibl
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13866#issuecomment-4381093852 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2026 16:22:28 UTC