- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:44:07 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
Christopher Robert Jaquez wrote: > It appears to me that the definition of the 'cover' keyword for > 'background-size' is a bit off. From > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#background-size we have "...the > largest size [that] ... can completely cover the background...". As > the LARGEST size would be infinite, I'm quite sure it should read: > "...the SMALLEST size..." there. Not that I think that this was > tripping up any implementers. > > Apologies if this has already been pointed out somewhere but it shows > up in the latest draft and I didn't see any mention of it in the > archives, minutes, or a web search, although I certainly could have > missed something. Good catch, it's fixed in the latest Editor's Draft. :) http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-size ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 16:45:03 UTC