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

Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec

From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:44:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4F1D8E6F.4020503@gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 23/1/12 18:04, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> (Also, the background-position syntax doesn't make sense to me.  It
> allows "left 10% bottom 10%", which is the same as "10% 90%"; but
> doesn't allow "10% 5px 10% 5px", which is an effect that's not
> obtainable without using calc().

So? What's the problem if this case needs calc()? How is calc() a hurdle?
I think calc(10%+5px) calc(10%+5px) is *much* more readable than 10% 5px 10% 5px, which I had a really hard time figuring what you expect it to do (and I'm still not sure I got it right).

  Nor does it allow things like "10%
> bottom 5px" to mean "10% calc(100% - 5px)".  "[ left | right |
> <percentage>  ] [<length>  ]?" would make more sense to me than "[ left
> | right ] [<percentage>  |<length>  ]?".  But that's a side point.)

You can write left 10% bottom 5px, which isn't very far from what you wrote. Five extra characters aren't such a big problem, and they help readability too. 

-- 
Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 16:45:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT