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: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 01:10:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDR3w+_eNN2urf6+FBXg9kocsTh3YFs7m6P++8tTRz-GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:26 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 08:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 'background-position' is the one and only context in CSS 2.1 (and, as
>> far as I know,<position>  in general is the only context in all of
>> CSS) where percentages are treated different than an equivalent
>> length.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#background-position
>  # Percentages:  refer to size of background positioning area minus size
>  #               of background image; see text
>
> I'm not seeing your problem.

Hm.  Now that you point at that, I think you may be right.  I was
thinking of %ages differently, but if they're treated as using that
formula to resolve to a <length>, then everything works out again,
since both %ages and lengths still have the same 0 point.

In that case, um, never mind?

(We still need to be vigilant with other uses of percentages to make
sure they're consistent with their equivalent unit, of course, but I
don't think we have any problematic things right now.)

~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 09:11:48 GMT

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