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 20:01:12 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB192AE@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Ah, ok... so yet another module is "wrong".

This all screams CSS>3 to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: Brian Manthos; 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 11:52 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:>
> > From: L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org]
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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?
> 
> Both.  David is correct that the computed value of bg-position
> maintains percentages without converting them to lengths.  It is also
> true that, given the current state of the calc() spec,
> "background-position: 75%;" and "background-position: calc(75%);"
> produce two very different positions.

If that's true, that's a mistake in the calc() spec (which was
written after I implemented this).  It shouldn't be hard to fix.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂

Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 20:02:08 GMT

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