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

Re: background-position and -origin

From: Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:22:35 -0400
Message-Id: <a0624080fc4ca346e46e5@[192.168.1.196]>
To: www-style@w3.org

At 8:02 PM +0100 8/14/08, fantasai wrote:

>Thanks for your comments. It's an interesting idea, and would certainly
>make the property name more meaningful, but Bert and I think the
>backwards-compatibility story of specifying the corner and the offset
>together is better:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Apr/0370.html
>
>What do you think?

    The fallback story is better from a formal point of view, though I 
don't know that a web designer would be of like mind.  Even if a 
browser takes 'bottom 25px right 10%' to be 'bottom right' (which 
presumes a really good CSS parsing implementation, and we know that's 
a chancy thing upon which to rely), most designers aren't going to be 
much or any happier than if it had just ignored the whole thing and 
defaulted to '0 0'.
    All depending on the design in question, of course.  Nevertheless, 
from the author/designer point of view, I don't know that this is a 
big win.
    I'd like to be clear, though, that I'm not objecting to your 
proposal on these grounds, or really on any grounds.  I'd be happy to 
see adopted the 'background-position' syntax you've proposed.  I just 
wanted to propose another route to the same basic goal to see if one 
or the other emerged, upon consideration, as a better approach.  One 
question: would there be room to define your proposed more flexibly, 
so that the following would be equivalent?

    background-position: bottom 10px right 25%;
    background-position: bottom right 10px 25%;

-- 
Eric A. Meyer (eric@meyerweb.com)     http://meyerweb.com/
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 19:23:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:11 GMT