W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [css3-background] 'background' shorthand

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:01:11 +1000
Message-ID: <47FA5357.9030201@css-class.com>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Bert Bos wrote:
> While working on open issues for the Backgrounds and Borders module, we 
> came across this old message, which looks like a feature request, but 
> has never had an answer from the WG yet:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006May/0037.html
> Laurens Holst:
>> S.F. Alim schreef:
>>> Well I believe that size is necessary but what about image should
>>> flip vertical or horizotal or even mirror it - I mean inverse it
>>> like whatever is right to left should be left to right
>> Well, that sounds like a negative size.
>> So, “url(foo)/-100%” auto will cause the image to flip.
> This is not an official answer, only the opinion of the editors. We 
> think flipping images does not belong in CSS, certainly not in level 3. 
> There is little demand for it, little interest in implementing it and 
> images can easily be flipped *before* being sent to a UA (a method that 
> works for images outside of CSS, too).
> [For Tracker: this fulfills ACTION-8.]
> Bert

I can see that there is really no need to flip images (in theory) but I 
will mentioned that this was a unmentioned part of my 
background-position proposal.


Now having the symmetry different from margin, padding and borders.

background-position:0 0 0 0; /* left, top, right, bottom */

Flipping from top to bottom.

background-position:0 100% 0 100%; /* left, top, right, bottom */

Flipping from left to right.

background-position:100% 0 100% 0; /* left, top, right, bottom */

Flipping on both axises.

background-position:100% 100% 100% 100%; /* left, top, right, bottom */


Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 17:02:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:35 UTC