- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:51:55 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:08:48 +0200, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: > Thank you Brian. The examples you gave has made me think. At this moment > of time, neither 'background-position-x' nor 'background-position-y can > be expressed in shorthand values for 'background' I'm not proposing any > syntax (just made up to express what I see as an issue) but something > like the following would have to appear in a 'background' shorthand > declaration. Nothing would *have to* be added, shorthands don't necessarily have to be able to set every possible combination of values the individual properties allow. For instance, the border shorthand can't be used to set different border colors on different sides. And since shorthands always set a value for every property that has been omitted anyway, the only point in adding a new syntax would be to be able to skip one keyword/value: > background: url(wow.png) x(20px) no-repeat; background: url(wow.png) 20px no-repeat; or background: url(wow.png) 20px 0 no-repeat; depending on which one you want > background: white url(who.png) y(10%); background: white url(who.png) center 10%; or background: white url(who.png) 0 10%; depending on which one you want > background: url(we.png) xy(20px, 10%) repeat-y; background: url(we.png) 20px 10% repeat-y; -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 12:52:36 UTC