W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [css3-background] "background-position" and bidirectionality

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:43:27 +0100
Cc: www-style@w3.org
To: Undisclosed.Recipients: ;
Message-Id: <200901232043.27963.bert@w3.org>

On Wednesday 21 January 2009 10:29, Jens Meiert wrote:
> > > > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-positio
> > > > >n>
> > >
> > > just wonder how stable that suggestion is and if there's any
> > > "official" take?
> >
> > There's a CSS Working Group resolution on that syntax, and the
> > draft as a whole is winding down toward Last Call in the next week
> > or so, so it is indeed stable.
>
> Great, thanks Elika!

I can't resist playing Cassandra a bit here. I predict we're going to 
regret this syntax :-(

I reluctantly accepted calc()[1] some time ago. It's very difficult for 
the majority of CSS users, but at least it avoids having to learn 
different syntaxes for each property (such as this one 
for 'background-position'). And now we have a special syntax 
for 'background-position' *and* calc()!

We will see 'bottom 10px' and 'calc(100% - 10px)' side be side and 
people will have to learn both. And it won't be long before somebody 
thinks that 'bottom calc(100% - 10px)' does something, too. (It 
certainly does, but probably not what he expects.)

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-values-20060919/#calc



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 19:44:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:15 GMT