hidden from fantasai on 2014-08-13 (www-style@w3.org from August 2014) (original) (raw)

On 07/17/2014 06:59 AM, Bert Bos wrote:

On Wednesday 16 July 2014 17:51:33 Bert Bos wrote:

The WG decided[1] nevertheless to add that special case, also because it is unclear how to interpret 'background-position' for an element with 'display: none'.

With that in mind, here is an updated proposal for the errata. Add, right after the paragraph in 14.2[2] that ends

 [...] Such backgrounds must also be anchored at the same point as
 they would be if they were painted only for the root element.

the following two new paragraphs:

However, if no boxes are generated for the element whose background

would be used for the background of the canvas, then the canvas

background is transparent. (in CSS 2.1, that is the case when the

element or an ancestor has 'display: none'.)

Note that, if the element has 'visibility: hidden' but not 'display:

none', boxes are generated for it and its background is used for

the canvas.

Okay, I've updated CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders with the proposed text. I ended up rearranging a bit of the Backgrounds of Special Elements section to make it fit: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds-3/#special-backgrounds

Bert, could you take a look and let me know if the updated section is all okay? (This is the last issue on the DoC!)

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 22:03:19 UTC