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

Re: [css3-background] New Working Draft of CSS Backgrounds and Borders Level 3

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:56:08 -0700
Message-ID: <48ECE628.2080204@inkedblade.net>
To: Jordan OSETE <jordan.osete@laposte.net>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Jordan OSETE 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.

I think the current method of interpreting percentages is very intuitive.
It seems your concern is with calc(). The way percentages are defined in
the current draft
     # A percentage for the horizontal offset is relative to (width
     # background positioning area - width of background image). A
     # percentage for the vertical offset is relative to (height
     # background positioning area - height of background image),
     # where the size of the image is the size given by ‘background-size’.

already allows them to be combined with absolute lengths. calc(50% + 20px)
would center the image and then shift it 20px to the side.

What did you want to accomplish with your proposal that can't be done here?

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 16:56:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:40 UTC