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 19:06:37 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290341B68D@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Tab Atkins Jr.:]
> 
> 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.
> 
And it's all *so* intuitive ! :)

Joking aside, am I reading correctly that in some cases the <position> value type
resolves differently than in others? I'll assume that's both unfortunate and
unavoidable and, hopefully, not too surprising in most cases. A list of those 
properties categorized by how they resolve it would be interesting. Seems like 
fodder for a blog post, at least.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:07:17 GMT

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