- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:30:26 +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>
Tab: > Your proposal for <complex-anchor> appears to roughly the same as what > I'm suggesting, except that it additionally allows a bare > "background-position: 50% + 5px;", and it still makes My proposal doesn't say that. That's one incarnation you *could* specify in the (new) 4th and 5th clauses. Some simple variations could be... Background-position: complex-anchor(50% + 5px); Background-position: (50% + 5px); Brian: > The following approach is significantly better: > 1. Backgrounds: Introduce <complex-anchor> > <complex-anchor> = <percentage> [+ | -] <length> > 2. Backgrounds: Introduce 4th (and maybe 5th) clause(s) to <bg-position> that show when <complex-anchor> > can be used. Note that it's probably desirable to only > support this in background-position not anywhere else > that <position> is now being used. > 3. Backgrounds: Define how <complex-anchor> behaves when used within a background-position value > 4. Values: Describe how "calc(<complex-anchor>)" resolves to "<complex-anchor>" when found within > background-position values > Result: Backgrounds module remains the definitive authority on how background-position behaves and there is no ambiguity. Tab: > "background-position: 50%" and "background-position: calc(50%)" > resolve to different values (I think). If you only did steps 1-3, yes. If you also do step 4, no.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:31:20 UTC