- 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