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: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:29:36 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290341B382@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Tab Atkins Jr.:]
> 
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > I am referring to the pattern in Brian’s email. I think many folks will
> expect an expression like calc(100% -5px) to resolve at compute time in
> background-position, just like it would when in width.
> 
> Did you mean something else?  Percentages do *not* resolve at compute-time
> in either background-position or width.  They can't - they rely on layout
> info.
> 
That's simply not always true. If your containing block has a fixed width then 
width:50% will compute to half that width. (So will calc(50%), by your own definition).
 

I also don’t know anyone who has any use for writing calc(50%) instead of 50% so it
may not be so obvious to people that the two are meant to be equivalent. (Though I agree
they should be)

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 08:30:25 GMT

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