W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2010

Re: [css3-background] New use case for background-position-x (&y!)

From: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 23:18:43 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTik2wnaF31L5K--Vepb+ZSZjy+5jUC2sUFkptABN@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 9 November 2010 15:43, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is "accidental" because it takes advantage of a side effect of the spec. The spec was designed to show a background image that can be tiled or not. It was not designed to show show completely different images based on where the tiling begins. You are free to use it that way if you wish, but that was not a guiding principle when writing the spec, and is still not a guiding principle when altering the spec.

Accidents are not deliberate, just because somebody does something you
did not expect, doesn't make it accidental or wrong.

It's not a side effect of the specification, it's just something
unexpected according to the original intentions of the specification
authors.  This is not the same thing as the specification itself.  The
specification is not being deviated from.

Image spriting is unrelated to tiling, typically no-repeat is
specified, so there is no tiling of the background.

Where are the guiding principles for CSS3?  I cannot find them.  For
HTML there's "Support existing content", "Do not reinvent the wheel",
"Pave the cowpaths" so I can see they have not been adopted.

> Sure. Do whatever you like. Just don't expect the spec to change because of it.

I don't expect the specification to change because of what *I* like to
do.  I expect it to be more complete, for what *anyone* would like to
do, for whatever reason, unrestricted by the original intentions of
the specification authors, after all, they're writing it for everyone,
not just themselves.

It's not unreasonable to want to specify x and not y.  It *is*
unreasonable to obstruct such ability.

The existing use cases (and guiding principles) that were used for
background-position itself ought to be adequate, for they are exactly
the same use cases.  We shouldn't have to discover new ones.  That is
also an unreasonable requirement, so ignore the image-sprite use case,
you don't need a new use case, you already have one, because you
already have background-position, you must have a use case already.
Whatever it is, just use that.

-- 
Lee
www.webdeavour.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:19:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT