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: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:49:29 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB191DC@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I was talking about "as it does today".   It's unclear to me from your answer whether you're agreeing with me (as Tab seems to have been in his reply) or not.  Can you please elaborate?

-----Original Message-----
From: L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:40 AM
To: Brian Manthos
Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style list; fantasai
Subject: Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec

On Monday 2012-01-23 19:28 +0000, Brian Manthos wrote:
> I find this proposed behavior bizarre, personally.  I'm not sure I would fight against it yet (because I need to consider it some more), but on the surface it's very counterintuitive to me.
> 
> For the example
> 	Width: 200px;
> 	Height: 400px;
> 	Background-position: calc(100% - 5px) calc(100% - 10px);
> 	Background-repeat: no-repeat;
> 
> As I understand it, the computed value for background-position is something like
> 	195px 390px

No, the computed value for background-position has both percentages
and lengths in it, just as it does today.

Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 19:51:24 GMT

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