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: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:03:03 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB1FAC0@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Ah, object-position isn't on my radar yet.

I would argue that it was a mistake infecting object-position with the same virus that background-position has.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:00 AM
To: Brian Manthos
Cc: Sylvain Galineau; L. David Baron; www-style list; fantasai
Subject: Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec

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 19:03:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:02 UTC