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: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:32:22 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwzs5mGzXpQKC7hjCzvbAgAfFXsC6q2FCPEuZY@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/11/2010, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote:
> You have really missed the points raised by others regarding the other
> background properties. They must work individually and together as
> well as work in one background declaration.

You're missing my point.  Adding -x and -y will not change that.
Everything can still work individually and together.

>> Each fragment of my image has to be served separately?  No thanks, how
>> is that viable?  What on earth would I write all that code for?  52
>> uris?  I only need 1, and 17 rules.  How can you recommend an
>> alternative approach that 1/ lacks support and 2/ doesn't really make
>> coding easier, or more right - whilst keeping a straight face?
>
>
> How about 4 images and 13 positions. This is 1 better than your case
> which requires 18 rules. A demo.

My case also requires 17 rules, not 18.  However, from a *maintenance*
perspective, I want to maintain 1 image, not 4.

>> What would the objection be then?  Or is this working group just
>> generally averse to imaginative uses of CSS?
>
> No, they are adversed to being attacked by developers on one extreme
> and the web community on the other extreme.

As I'm requesting neither new or modified capability or behaviour, I
don't see what's extreme about this.  What I consider to be extreme is
demanding a use case for a finer-grained version of something which we
already have.  Perhaps this is the reason they're feeling like they're
being attacked.  I don't feel like I'm attacking them.  It feels like
I'm telling them off for being petty/lazy, I'm not suggesting they
are, but that's what it feels like.

> I should state that
> css3-background may be one of the first specs by the CSS WG that
> becomes a recommendation for the first time in 12 years. The last was
> CSS2 in May 1998. Many developers would love to have css3-background
> reach PR or REC since then vendor prefixes could be dropped for things
> like border-radius, box-shadow and background-size.

That's great, but I'm also starting to realize why these things might
have taken so long.

-- 
Lee
www.webdeavour.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:32:55 GMT

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