- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:36:05 -0800
- 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>
wrote:
>> 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
occur.
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 20:36:57 UTC