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: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:58:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKA+Axma-xHsiQNm5fEgHSoL6v=kU6K1oNGxawbXy7hdgg+OVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

I agree.  By the same token, I think "calc(100%-5px) calc(100%-5px)"
is more understandable than "right 5px bottom 5px", so I don't see a
need for the three- or four-value syntax at all.  "right 5px bottom
5px" looks like four separate positions, not two.
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 17:06:14 GMT

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