- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:36:15 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:32:40 +0200, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 02/21/2012 02:53 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-repeat lists >> the Computed Value of background-repeat as "as specified". >> >> Since the Computed Value line describes the information that the >> implementation must retain (or not) in the computed value (which is >> then inherited), this seems to imply that implementations must >> retain the distinction between "repeat" and "repeat repeat" while >> inheriting. This seems wrong; I don't think that distinction should >> be retained in the conceptual computed value. >> >> (However, when serializing, since implementations should prefer >> serializing a computed value to its longer-established form [1], >> both should get serialized as "repeat".) >> >> At least, based on my understanding of what the "Computed Value" >> line means, I think this should change. But I'm not sure how well >> my understanding is reflected in the relevant specifications. > > Ok, I've changed it from > Computed value: as specified > to > Computed value: two keywords, one per dimension > And clarified that the one-keyword values compute to the two-keyword > forms. > > Please let me know if this satisfies your comment. This only makes sense when there is a single entry in the comma-separated list. The same issue already exists for 'background-position'. -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:36:48 UTC