- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:51:09 +0200
- 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 UTC