- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:01:48 -0400
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/12/10 3:23 AM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> Note that this example doesn't apply directly today because neither Opera nor Firefox appear to support background-size values in the background shorthand no matter what I attempt to throw at them.
Yes, because the syntax for background-size in the shorthand wasn't
finalized as of when we implemented -moz-background-size. I doubt we'll
add it to the shorthand until we switch from -moz-background-size to
background-size, for that matter.
> But let's assume they support the shorthand-based specification of background-size values in the future. If Firefox maintains the current behavior for values less than 0.00833333331px, then the treatment of that markup will be the same in the future.
>
> Namely, IE might see...
> div {
> background: url(http://www.microsoft.com/favicon.ico) / 0.00833333330px 100px aqua;
> background-size: 100px 100px; /* override the sizing */
> height: 100px;
> width: 100px;
> }
>
> ... while Firefox would see ...
> div {
> background-size: 100px 100px; /* irrelevant, no image specified */
> height: 100px;
> width: 100px;
> }
Uh.... Why, exactly? Given your style rules above, Firefox will have a
specified value of "100px 100px" for background-size and render the
background at that size. I don't understand how you came to your
conclusion; care to explain?
In fact, your rule above would be treated by Firefox exactly as this
rule would be:
div {
background-image: url(http://www.microsoft.com/favicon.ico);
background-size: 0.00833333330px 100px;
background-color: aqua;
background-size: 100px 100px;
height: 100px;
width: 100px;
}
> Such oddities are the enemy of interoperability.
Yes, but there is no such oddity in this case.
-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 13:02:31 UTC