W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] transform-origin syntax: 3D vs. background-position

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:44:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDLuTo625iHBkD+s2vLOgyuxK4X6Lyc04SwmsYh5sMxpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Firefox supports the full bg-position syntax in nightlies as of today.
>>  I think Opera does as well.
>
> Yeah, confirmed that Gecko nightlies support the new
> background-position syntax.  I don't like it, but it has a bunch of
> traction and might not be worth removing from background-position
> itself.
>
> I still don't think we should try to propagate the syntax to other
> properties like transform-origin.  It should be restricted to
> background-position only.  Anything else that wants <position>s should
> use the older, simpler syntax only.  If it's too late to keep
> background-position simple, it's not too late for other things.

Nope, we purposely define the <position> token to be equivalent to
<bg-position>, precisely so that other specs can use it.

I know you don't like the syntax, but I and fantasai do, at least, and
have no problem with it being used for more properties in the future.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:45:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:45:24 GMT