- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:19:33 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Tab, I brought this up previously. Can we get an informative note or some-such making reference to the fact that <bg-position> of "Backgrounds 3 CR" has been renamed to <position> in EDs, and that Images is matching that new token? Connecting these subtle dots will likely be helpful for the 3rd+ people to discover this inconsistency. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 7:36 AM > To: Øyvind Stenhaug > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [css3-images] Syntax of <position> in radial-gradient() > > 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>. > We'll push that to the CR draft at some point, since it's purely > editorial. > > ~TJ >
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 18:20:11 UTC