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 13:15:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB=iZ9yVKTTG821JQ-eXLFD0joRtRQLFAeigHxAXVJSBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> [Tab Atkins Jr.:]
>> Could you please answer the questions I posed, or at least tell me whether
>> the answers I think you'd give (based on your previous emails) are
>> correct?  Brian has made his answers clear.
>
> I don't disagree with you (not yet, at any rate...) so there is no point in
> pursuing that arguing. Again, it's not about convincing *me* of
> the way you think it should work, it's about convincing me that someone who's
> never used calc() in background-position before will get it right i.e. what I
> think of as being intuitive. It seemed much more of a 'this bit is intuitive
> once you're already familiar with the feature' to me. In that respect, I support
> being consistent though I'm worried about changing calc() to make background-position
> consistent having side-effects elsewhere calc() can be used. Might be an unwarranted
> fear but I'd rather not change it again.

Here's the problem: based on your previous emails, you appear to be
advocating a contradictory position.  This is why I can't discuss any
details with you until I establish what you actually believe, because
I'm not sure what angle you're coming from.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:16:02 GMT

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