Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2014-04-16

On 04/17/2014 05:17 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>
> OK, but it seems odd to have a completely different value for
> the shorthand than what shows up in the longhand. Given
> 'background-repeat-x: repeat; background-repeat-y: no-repeat;',
> I would expect the longhand to be 'background-repeat: repeat no-repeat'
> for the way CSS normally works. Should we change the longhand
> values too, and deprecate the old way?

You mean the shorthand to be 'background-repeat: repeat no-repeat'? :)
This is already valid.

~fantasai

Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 00:28:18 UTC