RE: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec from Sylvain Galineau on 2012-01-24 (www-style@w3.org from January 2012)

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:29:15 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290341B245@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.>


[Tab Atkins Jr.:
> 
> Nah, the (implicit) proposed solution patches calc() to work in the
> intuitive way for <position>, so <percentage>s and <length>s are tracked
> separately in calc() and then applied as two steps.
> 
Intuitive for whom? I'd love to see how many authors gets this one right.
As noted in a separate thread, it is natural to think of CSS functions as
JS functions, especially this one. I'm willing to bet you a bottle of wine
in Paris* that most people will expect the exact results Brian expects.

*: of my choice...

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 04:30:15 UTC