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: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:33:38 -0800
Message-ID: <4F1E5ED2.5060705@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/23/2012 11:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:20 AM, L. David Baron<dbaron@dbaron.org>  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Note that this is non-conforming with the current calc() spec, as
> calc() will simply return a<length>, which is then interpreted as a
> simple offset from the side.

How is it non-conforming? Where does calc() say it computes to a <length>?

> Gecko's behavior is the *right* one, of course.  We just need to spec
> that using calc() in a<position>  has special behavior.  I've been
> nitpicking other new properties to ensure that they don't run into
> similar problems.

We should put this in as an example, to make sure nobody else gets it
wrong.

> Fantasai - this makes me think more strongly that we should go ahead
> and spec <position> in Values 3.  Thoughts?

I'd rather not have the same normative text in multiple modules. We
already define it by reference in Values 3; I think that's good enough
unless/until some property other than background-position wants to
extend it.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 07:34:16 GMT

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