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

RE: [css3-background] background-position-x background-position-y

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:04:26 +0000
To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F01782903428733@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Florian Rivoal:]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This has been discussed several times already, but I'd like to have
> another go at it.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/9

> 
> Three browsers / two engines (trident and webkit) support background-
> position-x and background-position-y, and do so unprefixed.
> 
> I can be receptive for arguments about not doing this. And to arguments
> about doing it. But saying it shouldn't be specified and implementing it
> at the same time makes me a sad panda.
> 
> While not extremely common, it is not all that rare either in the wild,
> and our (standard compliant) lack of support for it causes breakage.
> Outreach to let authors know of their errors has not been very successful
> on this one, with authors telling us that the fix should be on our side,
> as they are not under the impression that they are using something out of
> ordinary.
> 
> If people against it can convince people shipping it to drop support, I'd
> be satisfied, as that would force authors to move back to standard
> compliant ways of doing the same thing.
> 
> Since I doubt this will happen, I'd like to have it specified.


If it does cause breakage then that does sound reasonable. Do you have examples?

Also, does your subject line header indicate you want to address this in the 
current level?
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:05:00 GMT

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