- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:02:24 -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 17:37, Gérard Talbot a écrit : > 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 I filed this bug report: Issue 711489: background-position with only one [ <length | <percent> ] value with gradient incorrectly rendered https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=711489 Gérard
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2017 23:03:02 UTC