W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Fourth value for background-attachment?

From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:34:28 +0300
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.sphsjqxk8nstxa@lomarnona>

What Kelly Miller means is, there should be a third option where the image
is fixed relative to the ELEMENT and not WINDOW, and had been outlined
very nicely by Peter-Paul Koch at
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/background.html .

He says there should be a third option for the background-attachment
properties, that is what Kelly is talking about, I believe.

I had earlier read this at quirksmode and I really like the idea, but I am
sure someone on the list will manage to find a fundemental flaw with the
idea that I possibly could never think of.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:44:17 +0300, Kelly Miller
<lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Kelly Miller wrote:
>>> This is something that I've been wondering about.  Does anyone think  
>>> CSS could benefit from a value of background-attachment that is  
>>> relative to the top left corner of the root element (basically, like  
>>> fixed except it scrolls with the document instead of staying in one  
>>> place)?
>> You can just apply it to the root element... And if that isn't enough,  
>> you can also apply multiple background images to the root element with  
>> the current CSS3 proposal...
> I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying.  Yes, you could
> apply it to the root element, but what I'd rather do is apply it to the
> element that actually represents where I want the image to display.
> Basically, I want a type of background-attachment that allows me to use
> background-position where 0, 0 is the top left of the document, but the
> only part displayed is the part where the element intersects with the
> image.  Basically, this would be to fixed what the new 'local' value is
> to scroll.

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 18:34:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:17 UTC