W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2010

Re: [css3-background] background-shorthand and its background-clip side-effect

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:36:05 -0800
Message-Id: <D02866DC-0560-44E2-9038-8FBA7B0B1D3A@gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>

On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>  

>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>> That's overkill. There's no reason to involve a slash to address
>> Sylvain's
>> concern about being able to set both. You just put
>>   [border-box|padding-box|content-box]{0,2}
>> in the background shorthand. Zero occurrences sets both background- 
>> clip
>> and background-origin to their initial values. One occurrence sets  
>> both
>> to the given value. Two (immediately adjacent) occurrences sets the
>> first
>> to origin and the second to clip (because you position before you  
>> clip).
>> This is much more consistent with CSS syntax elsewhere.
> I agree that this seems much more consistent with existing CSS  
> practice and authors'
> expectations.

On it's own it not too bad, but as a way to disambiguate between two  
subproperties in in 'background' that take the same values, it is  
inconsistent with any of the proposals to disambiguate <bg-position>  
and <bg-size>.  I don't think this serves authors as well, ultimately,  
who currently have no expectations of how this disambiguation should  
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 20:36:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:43 UTC