- 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