You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In CSS Backgrounds 4, background-position is defined with <position># and <position> is defined with a value that accepts the 3-values form, which has been removed from the definition of <position> in CSS Values 4, as explained in #2140. I believe this is the reason why CSS Backgrounds 3 defines background-position with <bg-position># instead of <position>#.
CSS Backgrounds 4 is flagged as Not Ready For Implementation but is listed in w3c/browser-specs and used by @webref/css, which picks the definition of background-position from CSS Backgrounds 4 instead of CSS Backgrounds 3 during its curation step, resulting to duplicate definitions for <position>. Do you think CSS Backgrounds 4 should not be listed in w3c/browser-specs? Otherwise, can <position> be replaced to <bg-position> in this spec, please?
In CSS Backgrounds 4,
background-position
is defined with<position>#
and<position>
is defined with a value that accepts the 3-values form, which has been removed from the definition of<position>
in CSS Values 4, as explained in #2140. I believe this is the reason why CSS Backgrounds 3 definesbackground-position
with<bg-position>#
instead of<position>#
.CSS Backgrounds 4 is flagged as Not Ready For Implementation but is listed in
w3c/browser-specs
and used by@webref/css
, which picks the definition ofbackground-position
from CSS Backgrounds 4 instead of CSS Backgrounds 3 during its curation step, resulting to duplicate definitions for<position>
. Do you think CSS Backgrounds 4 should not be listed inw3c/browser-specs
? Otherwise, can<position>
be replaced to<bg-position>
in this spec, please?FYI, @tidoust.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: