- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:37:54 -0400
- To: Philippe Wittenbergh <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Le 2017-04-13 17:24, Gérard Talbot a écrit :
> Le 2017-04-13 16:38, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Philippe Wittenbergh
>> <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Henrik Andersson
>>>> <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This following code acts differently in Chrome and SeaMonkey(Gecko).
>>>> Which is correct?
>>>>
>>>> Chrome gives the same result as if the background-size specified 33%
>>>> for
>>>> the height. SeaMonkey thinks it should have a height of 100%.
>>>>
>>>> div {
>>>> width: 160px;
>>>> background-repeat: repeat-x;
>>>> background-size: 33%;
>>>> height: 400px;
>>>> background-image: linear-gradient(red, red);
>>>> border: black solid 1px;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Per CSS3 - backgrounds:
>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds/#the-background-size
>>>
>>> For background-size:
>>>
>>>> [ <length-percentage> | auto ]{1,2}
>>>> The first value gives the width of the corresponding image, the
>>>> second value its height. If only one value is given the second is
>>>> assumed to be ‘auto’.
>>>
>>> further, for auto, the text notes:
>>>
>>>> An ‘auto’ value for one dimension is resolved by using the image's
>>>> intrinsic ratio and the size of the other dimension, or failing
>>>> that, using the image's intrinsic size, or failing that, treating it
>>>> as 100%.
>>>
>>> For a gradient (as in your example), the “image” has no intrinsic
>>> size, thus 100% should be used. That is what Firefox / Gecko does.
>>> Chrome and Safari are wrong.
>>
>> This is correct. Chrome/Safari are buggy here. Mind filing bugs?
>>
>> ~TJ
>
> Philippe or Henrik,
>
> If you file a bug report on this, you can include a link to these 2
> draft tests:
>
> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3Backgrounds/draft-background-size-one-value-percent-0xx.xht
>
> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3Backgrounds/draft-background-size-one-value-0xx.xht
>
> I will submit eventually those tests (under different filenames) to
> the CSS3 backgrounds and borders test suite to improve test coverage.
> Those tests are quick draft for now (many text improvements needed and
> (not sure) possible test reduction) but they demonstrate clearly and
> cleanly an implementation failure of Chrome/Safari browsers.
>
> Gérard
It appears that MS-Edge 13 also fails these 2 tests.
I checked the background and borders test suite on background-position
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css-backgrounds-3_dev/nightly-unstable/html4/chapter-3.htm#s3.9
and none of the 8 tests we have on one single background-position value
fails in Chrome. So, we definitely can improve the coverage of the test
suite here.
+CC: Thierry Michel
Gérard
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2017 21:38:31 UTC