- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:36:17 -0800
- To: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Lee Kowalkowski wrote: > On 09/11/2010, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> Right, besides that, it also means that you cannot have a flexibly sized box >> with a background-color that extends out beyond the edge of the image in a >> single element. > > Huh? Sure you can. Just don't use a sprite image. > >> you mostly can't use background-position in its "normal" way >> without revealing some part of an unrelated image > > No! Don't use sprite images and you'll be fine. I am talking about using sprite images, as were you. By using background-position in a way that is different from what the spec authors intended, as you do when you use it for spriting, you give up the ability to use these other background properties as they were intended. Thus, the spec is not going to change just to suit that unintended use, but you are free to use it as is, if that is good enough. If it is not good enough, then look towards the upcoming image fragments spec, and contribute your comments to that, rather than waiting for the backgrounds spec to conform to your unintended use. We recognize the need, but it is not a background-* problem; it is an image fragment problem.
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 15:36:53 UTC