W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

RE: [css3-images] 5.2 radial-gradient() Syntax

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:33:50 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D1711DD5B@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
"Only difference" -- Yes.

Ok, it just seemed odd to me.  Background shorthand grammar shows how to reference the syntax of background-position (via <bg-position>) so it seemed disjoint to reference it in a different way when doing so from another module.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:32 PM
To: Brian Manthos
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-images] 5.2 radial-gradient() Syntax

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>        [<'background-position'>,]?
>        [<bg-position>,]?

That's the only difference, right?

If so, then either is valid, but I don't have to define what <'background-position'> means - according to the Values module, it means "whatever is accepted by the 'background-position' property".


Received on Saturday, 13 August 2011 00:34:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:03 UTC