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: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:51:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4F444A0D.9020008@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Sure it is :)

Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)


On 22/2/12 03:47, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Lea Verou<leaverou@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> It seems the grammar for<position>  is duplicated in the definition of the `transform-origin` property [1], rather than being deferred to the one that can be found in css3-background [2]
>>
>> On the other hand, css3-images do try to point to its definition elsewhere, but they point to css3-values, which doesn't define it [3]
>>
>> [1]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-2d-transforms/#transform-origin
>> [2]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-position
>> [3]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#radial-gradients
> Wow, I forgot how much this thread sidetracked.
>
> Anyway, V&U *does* define<position>, but it's in the ED, not the
> latest WD.  The references are filled in automatically, unfortunately.
>   So, I won't be making any change to the Images spec based on this.
>
> Please indicate if this resolution is acceptable.
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 01:51:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT