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 17:28:34 +0000
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290341B4C8@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Brian Manthos:]
> 
> Tab:
> > >  Why is that the "right" answer?
> >
> > It's the right answer because you're asking for it to be positioned at
> > "10%, plus 5px", and it gives you the element positioned at 10% then
> > shifted to the right 5px.
> 
> In your opinion.  How do you know that's what me or other authors are
> asking for?  As should be clear from this thread, I don't think most
> authors are asking for that at all.
> 
> As you state below, percentages are treated differently than length in
> background-position (for better or worse).  


And I think that's really the surprising part I'm talking about. I don't 
think it relates to calc(). If percentages are resolved differently in 
background-position then it can be argued resolving them differently in 
calc() would surprise the poor author again. Just when they thought they
understood background-position,  calc() weirds them out. That wouldn't help.
So I buy the consistency argument. The suggested result is intuitive *once*
you understand how the property works. If there is a bit of a learning hurdle
to overcome, it's already baked in there and there is little value in piling
on more.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:29:09 GMT

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