W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 1998

Re: IE, NN and background-position: thpppt!

From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 22:11:25 -0800
Message-Id: <v03102800b12a7c968cf4@[206.170.32.34]>
To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>, "Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Thus thpppt David Perrell:
 
> The background-position for a scrolling background is supposed to be
> relative to an element's content area, not its padding or containing
> block.[1]
>
> True for all elements, including BODY.
>
> Mis-implemented in both IE and NN.

> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#background-position>

Hm. You're right. I must say, though, I think the implementations might be
a little more useful than the spec, and I wonder whether CSS-2 ought not to
be amended to reflect the evident path of least resistance for implementors.

Take, for instance, this case: http:/www.verso.com/~todd/concept.html (in a
4.0 browser - both show errors). The paragraph-background image is a tiling
pattern. To get the same effect, I think, the spec would have me do
something like this:

	background-image: url(blackscreen.GIF) -1em -1em;
	margin-top: 0;
	margin-left: 0;
	margin-right: 67%;
	padding: 1em;

No no no - that's not right. That wouldn't extend the pattern out 1 em on
the right and bottom. So I'd have to declare the background on either the
padding or the border, which would affect the registration of the pattern,
and is totally bogus besides. It seems to me I can't get what I want with
CSS1 as speced. I'm trying real hard to imagine a rendering that the spec
would allow but that the semi-implementations wouldn't, and not coming up
with one.

It may also be the case that the hour and the homebrew in my blood have
affected my perception, and I'm missing something obvious.

__________________
Todd Fahrner
mailto:fahrner@pobox.com
http://www.verso.com/agitprop/
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 1998 01:06:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:54 GMT