- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:00:48 -0500
- To: James Hopkins <james@idreamincode.co.uk>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
James Hopkins wrote: > I've recently come across several sections of the CSS 2.1 spec [1] which > describe behavior that is either intentionally undefined or optional > (per RFC2119), and have already commented on one of these issues in a > previous email [2]. > > After some testing, and in both examples, the four main browsers (FF, > Safari, IE, & Opera) have adopted comparable implementations, and appear > to exhibit identical behavior. In these cases, I believe it would be > beneficial to standardize this established behavior in order to prevent > possible interoperability issues for authors (who have become reliant on > it), which may arise from retaining the definitions found in the current > specification. > > [1] Scaling of replaced elements > (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-width-property), position > and tiling of 'background-image' applied to inline elements > (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#background-properties) > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0324.html Replied to the first issue... For the second, this has been defined in CSS3 by giving it a control: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-box-decoration-break I don't think it's necessary to backport the definition to CSS2.1. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 29 December 2009 06:01:30 UTC