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
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4