- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:55:09 -0800
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > For 5 and 6… > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#background-position > > “If only one value is specified, the second value is assumed to be > ‘center’.” > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#css-values > > “Where CSS component values of the value can be omitted without changing the > meaning of the value (e.g. initial values in shorthand properties), omit > them. If this would remove all the values, then include the first allowed > value.” > > “E.g. margin: 20px 20px becomes margin: 20px.” > > > Thus… > > Minimization rule: “<length> center” => “<length>” > > >> “The B renditions of #8 and #10 are clearly wrong, as they go against the >> explicit text of the computed value line.” > > I presume you are referring to the 2nd sentence. > > That sentence is in direct conflict with the “omission” rule that CSSOM > describes. This presents an inconsistency relative to IE9 behavior which I > find troubling for back-compat and other reasons. Setting that aside for a > moment…. > > The second sentence of computed value reads: > > If three or four values are specified, two pairs of a keyword plus a length > or percentage. > > Does that mean that… > center top 5px > computes to > left 50% top 5px > rather than > 50% 5px (minimized) > or > center top 5px (conceptually aligned with the specified > value) > ? Ah, I see what you're referring to. The B&B text is in conflict with the suggestion for serialization in CSSOM. You should have mentioned that in the OP. In that case, I'll defer to Elika and Brad. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 22:56:09 UTC