W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:53:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDQgB5LMd8gKSUAZ0c3r6bbGd3GL3WzsVuToPtd8+-N7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> background-position (and other things using <position>) is the only
>> place where calc() has this problem.
> ... that has been discussed so far.
>
> Are you suggesting we guarantee that "no future property of CSS shall have a grammar which allows both <percentage> and <length> in the same location unless <percentage> follows a set of rules defined in section ___."
>
> I'd prefer to see that section written before going down that road of assumptions.  Especially since something like SVG is sure to break it in the future, if not already.

I've captured precisely that in the wiki as a design principle.  It
wouldn't be captured in a CSS spec, because it has nothing to do with
CSS-as-it-is-used - it's a design principle that we as spec authors
need to follow.

I'd need to examine SVG to see if it has any such problems.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 17:54:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT