- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:54:32 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:36:27 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> > wrote: >> The "radial-gradient() Syntax" section currently says that <position> >> "is >> defined as the positioning syntax of 'background-position'". >> >> This is unclear. Why not say that it is equivalent to <bg-position> as >> defined in css3-backgrounds? > > Because the ED of B&B now uses the more generic term <position>. Ah, OK. Maybe "is defined *by* [something]" to make it clear this css3-images sentence is not the definition but rather refers to the definition. > We'll push that to the CR draft at some point, since it's purely > editorial. Looks like a couple of instances of <bg-position> were left unchanged in the shorthand section. -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 15:55:01 UTC