Sebastian Zartner

And there's also a [resolution in #7164](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7164#issuecomment-1201340918), which seems should be added level 3. So added it, as well. Sebastian

@kbabbitt: > Not sure if the change I landed impacts the path to REC or what next steps might be; I'd be happy to revert the change to backgrounds-3 and...

Given we want to [move Selectors 4 to CR](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12799), I changed the label to https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/labels/selectors-5. Sebastian

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...

To make progress on this, let's get some [straw poll](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9438#issuecomment-1758111975) for the different suggestions. As there are many, I'll split them up into several comments. Please add your name besides...

* 👍🏻 `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...

> We went with `color-layers()` in [#8431 (comment)](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8431#issuecomment-2274558595) so I think we should definitely not go with the singular `background-layer` here. :) I want to point out that _all_ list-valued...

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`...

Also, @Loirooriol seems to suggest to revert the resolution to add the property in the first place in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8726#issuecomment-3267736296. So, if we decide to remove the property in favor of...

@JaneOri, you initially came up with the idea of adding this new shorthand. Maybe you have some opinion on this. Sebastian