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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:59:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBiSv5JriNQ=GpGctG-8r64BpYKhd8mNoq5hWhEZ5aqNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Tab:
>> <position> is the *only* place in CSS where this problem (percentages treated differently than equivalent lengths) crops up, so
>> attempting to reason from 'width' isn't very useful.
> Incorrect.
> The background-position property is the only place.
> The <position> token isn't the problem.

Nope, 'object-position' has the same problem.

Most other places that use <position> don't show the problem because,
as you pointed out previously, the "subject" being positioned is 0x0
anyway, so percentages go back to acting the same as lengths.

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:00:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:54 UTC