W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2004

Re: [css3-background] background-position

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:08:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4130D820.4010002@annevankesteren.nl>
To: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

>>>>> Can 'background-position' become a shorthand? Each value could be
>>>>> specified by a single property: 'background-position-x' and
>>>>> 'background-position-y'.
>>>> Why?
>>> In cases you only need to change one. [...]
>> Oh, I see. Yeah, that could make sense. Still, adding properties is 
>> expensive.
> perhaps a keyword to "not_overwrite already set value" if it is 
> feasable...I havent thought on this long, nor would I have a suggestion 
> on what the keyword would be call, or how to describe this semantic to 
> users...

Such a thing would be good enough, since it is about "not specifying the 
value". (It doesn't really matter if you replace the value with a 
keyword or have two new separate properties.)

How about making 'inherit' a possible value as in:

   background-position:240px inherit;

(Where 'inherit inherit' would be the same as 'inherit'.)

  Anne van Kesteren
Received on Saturday, 28 August 2004 19:08:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:15 UTC