Currently Gecko supports these as [padding][border][content], the CSS3 border & background module defines them as [padding-box][border-box][content-content] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-clip http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-origin Opera 10.50 and WebKit (safari 4) already support this.
My plan was to rename the values at the same time we renamed the properties, which we can do now that the draft is in CR. Do we have another bug already on renaming the properties?
We might also want to fix bug 368085 before renaming the properties.
Created attachment 449452 [details] [diff] [review] patch 1: implement -moz-background-clip: content (to be renamed in later patch)
Created attachment 449453 [details] [diff] [review] patch 2: remove comments representing removed no-clip value
Created attachment 449454 [details] [diff] [review] patch 3: rename properties and values of background-origin and background-clip
Created attachment 449455 [details] [diff] [review] patch 4: uncomment already-written code for background-clip and background-origin in background shorthand
Created attachment 449456 [details] [diff] [review] patch 5: also rename -moz-background-size to background-size I should file a separate bug for adding background-size to the shorthand.
Created attachment 449457 [details] [diff] [review] patch 6: re-alphabetize property-database.js
(In reply to comment #7) > I should file a separate bug for adding background-size to the shorthand. filed bug 570326
Comment on attachment 449455 [details] [diff] [review] patch 4: uncomment already-written code for background-clip and background-origin in background shorthand if (clip->mValue != origin->mValue) { aValue.Truncate(); return NS_OK; } Can you add a comment explaining what's happening here? I think we're deciding not to return a shorthand because the origin and clip need to be expressed separately?
One general comment: it seems we're not leaving aliases in place for -moz-background-size/-moz-background-origin/-moz-background-clip. So existing content could break. Should we alias the old names to the new names?
I think the only time we've done that in the past was -moz-opacity, since there was a significant amount of content using it, and even then we removed it after a while. We've taken the position that if authors were using these on the Web, they should have been doing: -moz-background-clip: ... /* other prefixes here, probably */ background-clip: ... all along. Additionally, we want to minimize Gecko-specific content on the Web.
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/665863f2ac31 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0f920bd875d7 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b5562d977e3a http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/63ccfca7cdb2 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c0bd45ab931f http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/979aceadf808
Also, I should file two followup bugs on things in the Editor's draft that haven't made CR yet: * adding origin+clip support to the shorthand (it now allows 2 values) * adding background-size support to the shorthand (changed since last CR, probably want to wait to implement until it hits CR again)
Should the dev-doc-needed keyword be set?
(In reply to comment #14) > Also, I should file two followup bugs on things in the Editor's draft that > haven't made CR yet: > * adding origin+clip support to the shorthand (it now allows 2 values) bug 570896 > * adding background-size support to the shorthand (changed since last CR, > probably want to wait to implement until it hits CR again) bug 570326 (I'd already filed it)
These changes to the documentation are done.
or
