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: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:00:12 -0800
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Cc: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120123190012.GA4800@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Monday 2012-01-23 12:32 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In any case, we are way offtopic. :) If you disagree with the
> > background-position syntax, please start a new thread about it (tagged with
> > [css3-background] or [css4-background])
> 
> I don't think we should change background-position syntax, if that's
> what browsers implement already.  I do think we shouldn't copy it to
> transform-origin, given that browsers haven't implemented it yet.

Gecko's started implementing the new background-position syntax; I
don't know if anybody else has.

I also don't think that's necessarily an obstacle to changing it;
the question is how much content depends on it.  (In the CSS world,
this is reduced both by prefixes and by the fact that if one
property doesn't work, it doesn't break the whole page by causing a
script exception like it does with APIs.)

> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > I don't think that means the ship has sailed.
> 
> Why not?  Does any advantage in the background-position-style syntax
> really outweigh going against two implementations?  (I haven't tested
> how IE behaves.)
> 
> > What's not obtainable using calc()?  Gecko's implementation of
> > calc(10% + 5px) for background-position positions the 10% point of
> > the image 5px to the left of the 10% point in the container.
> 
> Everything is obtainable using calc() -- that's my point.  And I think
> it's clearer using calc() anyway.  Why should we allow
> "transform-origin: left 10px bottom 10px" when "transform-origin: 10px
> calc(100% - 10px)" works?  If the problem is that "bottom" is more
> readable than "100%", we should solve that by allowing "calc(bottom -
> 10px)".

I'm not crazy about the new background-position syntax; I'd be fine
with just using calc() for this.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 19:00:38 GMT

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