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: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:43:58 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikvaD2VSWW=1Lky+FPinaC6BXP1Cb5OL4TxJvMt@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/11/2010, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you are just getting too hung up on the word "hack".

I think you're probably right.

>> There was a suggestion from Behdad about using them independently in
>> CSS Animations.  That sounds good, what about that?
>
> I think that is a much more compelling reason, although as Simon pointed
> our, it is a more general problem than just background-position. So perhaps
> a more general solution is needed.

I think Simon was indicating that all compound properties will be
limited via the lack of individual properties.  Of the animatable
properties, I think this only applies to background-position and crop.

As crop looks like it's designed to potentially support
non-rectangular shapes, trying to solve that with individual
properties could prove to be unscalable (e.g. if polygon was
introduced).

A general solution may be to leave individual properties and use a
keyword which means we don't want the value to be affected (e.g.
"same", "passive", "unchanged", "continue", "as-is").

E.g: background-position: 10px unchanged;

This could be a more general approach compatible with the likes of crop.

-- 
Lee
www.webdeavour.co.uk
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 10:44:30 GMT

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