[css-backgrounds] background-position definition doesn't reflect reality.
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 4.9k
- Forks
- 816
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds/#background-position doesn't mention at all background-position-x or background-position-y, of which background-position is a shorthand of.
These properties should be defined. For example, Gecko accepts background-position-y: <keyword> <length>? (due to the legacy 3-value syntax) while Blink / WebKit don't.
cc @ericwilligers, you did some yak-shaving re. 3-value position syntax and such, do you know which syntax does background-position-* accept in Blink?
Is there any plan to avoid supporting the three-value positions in background-position as well?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the CSS Backgrounds specification section at https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds/#background-position and review the definitions of background-position, background-position-x, and background-position-y. Check the issue's discussion of Gecko, Blink, and WebKit syntax; done means the relevant properties and accepted syntax are clearly defined and the three-value behavior question is resolved.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- css
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 28/100