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 11:27:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBzsmfjPPN8c0MF6rm2vew-Z4jjjbkXVWZMBhgMxsk1kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> David:
>> I think calc() should not have any discontinuities, i.e., putting
>> "calc()" around a valid value shouldn't change its behavior, and
>> putting a "+1px" inside a calc() should move change the result by
>> 1px.
>
> As it currently stands, calc() does not have discontinuities regarding this.
>
> More specifically...
>
> Example A:
>        width: 200px;
>        background-position: calc(10%);
> Example B:
>        width: 200px;
>        background-position: calc(10% + 1px);
>
> The left edge of the image for Example A is at offset 20px.  For Example B, it's 21px.  No discontinuity.

You're ignoring the first discontinuity that David talks about, which
is about wrapping a percentage in a calc().

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:28:35 GMT

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