This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#radial-gradients (4.2.1 in particular) I would expect to see the corresponding part in css3-background when I click <position>. No strong opinion though. Section: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#object-position Ditto. Linking to how <position> is used in radial-gradient() is certainly confusing.
Alternatively, you can say <position> is defined in css3-val and link there. I'll note that css3-background is not listed as a normative reference at the time.
(In reply to comment #1) > Alternatively, you can say <position> is defined in css3-values and link there. Nevermind. The spec already does this. (In reply to comment #0) > Section: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#radial-gradients (4.2.1 in > particular) > > I would expect to see the corresponding part in css3-background when I click > <position>. No strong opinion though. s/css3-background/css3-values/
Since I seem to already be doing what you're asking, I can just close this bug, right? I'm confused. ^_^
(In reply to comment #3) > Since I seem to already be doing what you're asking, I can just close this bug, > right? I'm confused. ^_^ No. Both instances of <position> now link to how they are used as an argument to radial-gradient() but not how they are defined. This is particularly confusing for the second instance in the description of 'object-position'. I would expect to see the corresponding part in css3-values when I click on any <position>.
Ah, indeed. I didn't realize that <position> was just linking to radial-gradient's argument. There was a FIXME comment in the source with a link to V&U. ^_^ I've fixed it so that both the radial-gradient() and object-position use of <position> link to V&U. Note that this link is broken until we republish V&U, which we intended to do a long time ago and will get on top of immediately. For now, just pretend that the V&U WD has been updated to the latest ED.
(In reply to comment #5) > Note that this link is broken until we republish V&U, > which we intended to do a long time ago and will get on top of immediately. > For now, just pretend that the V&U WD has been updated to the latest ED. You can link to the ED in the css3-images ED though (if that's doable). I actually prefer that way.