- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:34:17 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
L. David Baron wrote: > On Friday 2009-02-20 12:20 -0800, fantasai wrote: >> You raised a parsing issue with using slash for both, and disambiguation >> is less necessary for color (where always specifying both is a possible >> workaround) than it is for background-size (where it would be mixed up >> with background-position). So we dropped the slash for color. I don't >> like it either, I also preferred the old syntax. If you have a better >> solution than dropping the slash, or if you, as an implementor, think >> keeping the slash is worth the parsing complexity, then let's reopen >> this and resolve it another way. The current resolution was uncomfortable >> enough to me that I left it marked in the draft. > > There's no parsing complexity if we do either one of: > * come up with another syntax for separating background-size in the > shorthand > * require that you can't specify background-size in the shorthand > without also specifying background-position (so that you can't > use the '/' separating background-position and background size > and simultaneously omit background-position) Would this be a third option? * require that background-size not immediately follow background-color (so that if you find a slash after background-color, you know the fallback color is next) ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 23:34:57 UTC