To list. >_< On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Jordan OSETE <jordan.osete@laposte.net>wrote: > Hello, > > This is aimed to be a short mail about the way background-position works. > I think the current proposed syntax is quite complex, and somehow limited. > > Actually, I did a quick proposal a long time ago. You can find here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Jun/0054.html > Back then, I did abandon it because I thought it was too complex, but I > still like it somehow. And seeing that the current proposal is also going to > be complex anyway, I'd like to propose it again. > It is more powerful than the current syntax, because you can specify > different percentages relative to the bgimage dimensions AND to the > element's dimensions. > > Sorry, I don't have time to detail it here, please refer to the given link > for the technical details. > Please give me some feedback about this. > > Jordan OSETE > >From what I can tell, the thing that this proposal brings to the table is simply the ability to do percentage-based positioning based on either the image or the element (as opposed to the current method, which does both at once), correct? How would this syntax interact with the top/bottom/left/right keywords used to specify the edge to use for offsets? ~TJReceived on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 13:49:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT