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.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:03:46 GMT

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