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: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:20:53 -0800
Message-ID: <4F2AB7E5.1010900@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/24/2012 11:17 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2012-01-24 19:03 +0000, Brian Manthos wrote:
>> Tab:
>>> Brian:
>>>> The fact that "background-position: 10%;" and "background-position: calc(10%);"
>>>> can result in differ renderings is perhaps unfortunate, but required by the specs as I read them.
>>> Yes, it's currently required by the specs.  I've stated this several times.
>>
>> You might be saying that.  My interpretation of David's comments
>> is that he was saying otherwise.
>
> I don't understand the current calc() spec well enough to comment on
> what it says.

I thought you wrote most of it?

> However, I firmly believe that if Tab's assertion about what it
> currently says is correct (which I believe is at the very least what
> it's trying to say), then the spec is wrong and needs to be fixed.
> I think calc() should not have any discontinuities, i.e., putting
> "calc()" around a valid value shouldn't change its behavior, and
> putting a "+1px" inside a calc() should move change the result by
> 1px.

I think Tab's interpretation is wrong. calc() doesn't say how its
result is computed, it only says how it's typechecked. The spec has
a hole in it in that respect, perhaps, but it's not /wrong/.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 20:02:39 GMT

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