W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

RE: Splitting background-position in two different attributes

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:06:32 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D1711FBAF@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Agreed.

That was my point in the original question ["The css3 backgrounds/borders spec that's already at CR?"].  I guess I should be less subtle. ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brad Kemper
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Brian Manthos
Cc: fantasai; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: Splitting background-position in two different attributes

I think it should be CSS4 then. I would not like the progress of CSS3 B&B towards PR and REC slowed down to add new features. 


Brad Kemper

On Aug 15, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:

> There are other concerns before you even get to that.
> 
> Things like...
> 
> div {
>    background-image: url(a.png), url(b.png), url(c.png), url(d.png);
>    background-position-x: 1px, 2px, 3px;
>    background-position-y: 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%;
>    background-repeat: no-repeat, repeat, repeat-y; }
> 
> (a) What should an OM query for background-position return?  (I think 
> empty string because it's not constructible.)
> (b) What should the used value for the x dimension of 
> background-position be for the 4th image? (I think 1px, just like its 
> repeat value is no-repeat.)
> 
> There are a myriad of cases like these.  We've addressed many of them in IE9 and have work to do (IE10+) on others.  Whether the WG will agree with our assessments and approach will be fodder for many fun discussions, I'm sure.
> 
> -Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of fantasai
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:02 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Splitting background-position in two different attributes
> 
> On 08/15/2011 10:28 AM, Brian Manthos wrote:
>> I think getting the serialization addressed before throwing more into 
>> the entanglement that is background is preferred.
> 
> Also, I'd like to see a proposal that actually specifies the interaction with the extended background-position syntax that was introduced in L3 and the logical-keyword set that we will presumably introduce in L4.
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 20:07:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT