[css-backgrounds-4] Decide on name for shorthand covering everything background-* except background-color

In #8726 we resolved to add a shorthand for background-* minus background-color.

We didn't decide on its name yet, though. I already listed the current suggestions in the other issue, but here they are again:

background-layer
background-overlay
background-stack
background-list
background-canvas
background-pattern
background-sheet
background-screen
background-cover
background-slice
background-image-stack
background-media
background-image-list
background-image-layer

Straw poll (split into two comments due to the amount of suggestions):
#9083 (comment)
#9083 (comment)

Sebastian

Copying from #8726 (comment)

What about background-overlay? That addresses both of the concerns I raised:

It more clearly refers to the part of the background overlaying the color. (The background color is itself, functionally, a layer of the background so background-layer is confusing in this respect.)
It can be interpreted in a collective sense, so it doesn't feel odd that it's not plural.

Copying from #8726 (comment)

I think it's worth noting that we have a similar pattern of properties for fill, and might want to use the same name there: https://drafts.fxtf.org/fill-stroke-3/ (So we should pick a name that works for both.)

I still slightly prefer the initially suggested background-layer over the others. Though I am ok with background-overlay.

I am ruling out some for myself here, which I think don't fit well.

background-pattern While "pattern" indicates that the solid color is excluded, it somewhat sounds like it allows creating simple patterns and not to the images.
background-screen "screen" refers to the monitor in virtually all contexts, not to a layer.
background-cover "cover" rather has a meaning of a single thing, like a book cover, not of multiple layers.
background-slice We already have border-image-slice which refers to slicing an image. So "slice" here may rather confuse authors.
background-image-stack This conveys the idea of different image layers, though it looks like a longhand of background-image while it actually is a shorthand for it and the other background-* properties.
background-media "media" sounds like it covers images, videos and other types of media.
background-image-list Same reason as with background-image-stack.
background-image-layer Same reason as with background-image-stack.

Sebastian

@SebastianZ

To make progress on this, let's get some straw poll for the different suggestions. As there are many, I'll split them up into several comments. Please add your name besides the entry your prefer or add your vote to the comment. (I've added the names of members who expressed their opinion on one of the proposals in #8726.)

👎🏻 Abstain (0):
👍🏻 background-layer (3): @SebastianZ, @LeaVerou, @Crissov
😄 background-overlay (1): @fantasai
🎉 background-stack (0):
❤️ background-list (0):
🚀 background-canvas (0):
👀 background-pattern (0):

👍🏻 background-sheet (0):
😄 background-screen (0):
🎉 background-cover (0):
❤️ background-image-stack (0):
🚀 background-image-list (0):
👀 background-image-layer (0):

Note that I explicitly left out background-slice and background-media, because I think they miss the idea behind that property. If somebody thinks differently, please leave a comment!

I will object to adding background-image-whatever as a shorthand of background-image.

background-texture?

We went with color-layers() in #8431 (comment) so I think we should definitely not go with the singular background-layer here. :)

(I think background-layers doesn't convey as well as background-overlay that it doesn't include the background-color layer, so I'm not totally convinced. But at least it doesn't have the singularity weirdness of background-layer.)

We went with color-layers() in #8431 (comment) so I think we should definitely not go with the singular background-layer here. :)

I want to point out that all list-valued properties so far have singular names, e.g. transition, animation, box-shadow, and so do all background-* properties. So, even when it's clearer using the plural version here, it breaks consistency. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this.

What I do have a strong opinion about is the lack of votings so far. It would be great if we got some more opinions on this, so we can resolve on a name.

Sebastian

I'm also voting for background-layer. To me it seems the most self-explanatory.

@astearns

While there wasn't much feedback, the votes clearly lean towards background-layer. So I think it's fine to resolve on this.

@astearns I propose to resolve on naming the shorthand background-layer asynchronously.

Sebastian

@fantasai

I’d like @fantasai to weigh in first since in her last comment she was opposed to background-layer

@Loirooriol

Also, @Loirooriol seems to suggest to revert the resolution to add the property in the first place in #8726 (comment). So, if we decide to remove the property in favor of covering the outlined use case with the newly introduced revert-rule keyword, then the discussion about its name is moot.

Sebastian

Would it be back compat thought? Existing content would break if there were existing background-* properties followed by background-image with only a source that was interpreted as a shorthand. Is that what you mean by "if we can get it implemented"?

There's some CSSOM compat concern around shorthanding properties in general: #8398. I really think we should try and solve it though, so we don't have to force ourselves to a subpar developer experience (not just in this situation, but in others too).

I doubt there are sites using invalid syntax atm that would become valid with my suggestion though.

#8398 is about turning an old longhand into a shorthand of new properties.

This would be turning an old lonhand into a shorthand of old properties. I think it won't be web compatible.

#8398 is about turning an old longhand into a shorthand of new properties.

This would be turning an old lonhand into a shorthand of old properties. I think it won't be web compatible.

I agree. Authors use background-image all over the place assuming it won't reset any other property.

I agree. Authors use background-image all over the place assuming it won't reset any other property.

Ah right, that's definitely a compat concern

@Loirooriol

So shorthandifying background-image falls flat, unfortunately. And @Loirooriol is not against keeping a property for it if we can agree on a name.

@fantasai Would you object to name the property background-layer (singular)? (See my comment on why it should be singular.)

Sebastian

To be precise, I said "agree on a good name". To be honest, I don't like any of the suggestions I have seen so far, other than Tim's, but that one doesn't seem web compatible.

The attempt for a poll above didn't get much traction, so it seems people aren't very enthusiastic either about the proposed names.

A suboptimal name can be acceptable for an important functionality that can't be achieved in other ways, but here the usecase is covered by revert-rule, so I think the bar for a good name should be higher.

Then my preference is to not add the shorthand at this point.

This would be good to poll in-person at the f2f.

@Loirooriol

I won't be at the F2F. So if you do a poll at the F2F, it should consider the results in #9083 (comment) and #9083 (comment) plus @Loirooriol's point to drop the property again.

FWIW, my vote still goes to background-layer, even though it is already covered by revert-rule, as pointed out by Oriol. And I could also imagine this use case to be covered by additive CSS in the future.
Though my opinion is relatively weak on this.

Sebastian

The CSS Working Group just discussed [css-backgrounds-4] Decide on name for shorthand covering everything `background-*` except `background-color` , and agreed to the following:

RESOLVED: close this issue, no change
RESOLVED: No change for now, use `background` shorthand + `background-color: revert-rule`

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dholbert> astearns: Tab suggested having a poll on this
<dholbert> oriol: my idea is, out of the names proposed in the issue, I'm not liking any of them
<dholbert> ...I liked Tim's suggestion, but it's likely not web-compatible
<dholbert> oriol: there were attempts at a poll in the issue with github-reactions, but they didn't get much traction
<dholbert> oriol: getting back to use-case that we're trying to cover -- people want to set all props related to background images without affecting color
<dholbert> oriol: we have a new tool, "preferred rule"
<dholbert> s/preferred/revert/
<dholbert> oriol: you can set the background shorthand to all the values related to background-images, and this will set background-color, and then you can set background-color to revert-rule
<fantasai> `background: stuff; background-color: revert-rule`
<dholbert> ...and that will undo the effects of the shorthand
<lea> +1
<dholbert> oriol: given that we have a tool, and none of the proposals on the issue seem appealing, I'd prefer to not add this new shorthand
<lea> q?
<lea> q+
<dholbert> TabAtkins: I think we can wait, yeah
<dholbert> lea: I agree with TabAtkins and sebastian. Benefit seems marginal, revert-rule tool seems fine
<bramus> +1
<dholbert> astearns: proposed resolution is to close this issue no change for now
<dholbert> RESOLVED: close this issue, no change
<lea> s/revert-rule tool/revert-rule workaround/
<fantasai> RESOLVED: No change for now, use `background` shorthand + `background-color: revert-rule`

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[css-backgrounds-4] Decide on name for shorthand covering everything `background-*` except `background-color` #9083

10 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

[css-backgrounds-4] Decide on name for shorthand covering everything background-* except background-color #9083

Description

Activity

fantasai commented on Aug 3, 2023

SebastianZ commented on Jan 1, 2024

SebastianZ commented on Jan 1, 2024

SebastianZ commented on Jan 1, 2024

Loirooriol commented on Jan 2, 2024

jonjohnjohnson commented on Jan 2, 2024

fantasai commented on Aug 8, 2024

SebastianZ commented on Aug 8, 2024

JoshTumath commented on Aug 30, 2024

SebastianZ commented on Aug 21, 2025

astearns commented on Sep 8, 2025

SebastianZ commented on Sep 8, 2025

10 remaining items

nt1m commented on Nov 13, 2025

Loirooriol commented on Nov 13, 2025

LeaVerou commented on Nov 14, 2025

nt1m commented on Nov 14, 2025

SebastianZ commented on Nov 25, 2025

Loirooriol commented on Dec 18, 2025

tabatkins commented on Jan 23, 2026

SebastianZ commented on Jan 24, 2026

css-meeting-bot commented on Jan 27, 2026

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

[css-backgrounds-4] Decide on name for shorthand covering everything `background-*` except `background-color` #9083