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 21:52:15 +0300
To: "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.sphtddc58nstxa@lomarnona>

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

But while we are at it, please take notice of what is described at  
quirksmode.org.



On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:41:12 +0300, Kelly Miller  
<lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Emrah BASKAYA wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>

>>
> Actually, no, that's not what I'm saying.  What you decribe is the new  
> background-attachment value 'local' (this is actually what IE uses for  
> the value of scroll).  What I mean is something that works like this new  
> local value, but is fixed with regards to the window.  But logically, if  
> a background is attached relative to the window but scrolls, it's  
> actually attached relative to the DOCUMENT (or the root element,  
> technically).  What I'm suggesting is a value like this; it would make  
> it easier to line up background images in layouts where normally slicing  
> would be needed.
>



-- 
Emrah BASKAYA
www.hesido.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 18:52:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:36 GMT