- From: Nicholas Morgan <nimorgan@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:57:56 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-Id: <77DDF3E8-02B3-4DAE-BE98-58EE794BE059@gmail.com>
Hello Everyone,
I was skimming through the CSS3 spec and really enjoying what I am seeing.
When I saw "background-origin" (http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-origin) I got really excited; however, the more I read the more I was disappointed. I'm excited that I can pass it key words and translate the origin to specific areas inside the element. But for me it was the same as having "background-position" but only allowing me to have top, right, bottom & left.
I was wondering if there was a specific reason for not allowing values? For example:
background-origin: 100% 100%;
background-origin: 20px 34em;
Here is an example use case:
I have a link with simple text inside of it. The link is inline so its width will expand and contract with the amount of text.
a {
display: inline;
padding-right: 40px;
}
Now I want to position a background image -10px of the top right corner of the element. There is currently no way, that I am aware of, to accomplish this task.
If "background-origin" allowed values, I could do the following:
a {
display: inline;
padding-right: 40px;
background-origin: 100% 0%;
background: transparent url('icon.gif') no-repeat -10px 0px;
}
This would translate the origin from the top left corner to the top right and the image would appear -10px off the top right corner.
The only thing, I can think of, that would hinder this would be expressing another set of value pairs inside of short hand notation for "background".
I believe that all comments and suggestions have been closed for this particular topic since June 16th. So I just wanted to know what I was missing?
Thanks for all of your time and hard work.
-- Nick
Nick Morgan
nimorgan@gmail.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 15:32:47 UTC