- From: Jonathan Snook <jonathan@snook.ca>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:50:22 -0400
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> From a W3C perspective: > Please point me to the specification and section that explicitly indicate what the correct answer is for CSS3. I cannot find it. I can't find an explicit indication but elsewhere in the spec, it seems to indicate that omitted values should default to their initial value. The initial value for background-position is 0% 0%. Therefore, I would expect the default values for background-position-x and background-position-y to be 0%. In your original example, I would expect the omitted value to be 0%. > I think getting the serialization addressed before throwing more into the entanglement that is background is preferred. If the expectation is to push the current spec beyond CR with these serialization issues unaddressed, then why not add background-position-x and background-position-y and continue to leave these serialization issues unaddressed? If the issue is to address them within the current spec, then I would expect that it would be trivial to address it for background-position-x/-y on top of addressing it for the other shorthand properties. (That's not to say that addressing it will be trivial but that once you've solved it for one, I would assume the same would apply to the other.) Jonathan.
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 01:50:52 UTC