W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2014

Re: [css-backgrounds] background-position-x/-y, logical positions, and initial value failure

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:53:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA+AT0AQQb0y6uaBaF6icinPzGnykUjqQ5SrEALz8EkOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
> On 23/04/2014 17:08, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> In the normal way?
>
> What is the normal way to pick between unrelated properties?

They're not unrelated.

>> Note the assumption that the physical and logical
>> properties are aliases of each other, based on WM/direction.
>> (Implicitly requiring separate cascade of WM/direction first.)
>
> I’m asking precisely about that assumption and implication. Is there a spec
> for it? I don’t see anything relevant in css-cascade.

Of course there's no spec for it yet, *because figuring out what the
spec should say is what this thread is for*.

>> Once you've figured out that, say, margin-left and margin-inline-start
>> are aliasing each other, then the cascade works as normal.  The only
>> issue of this thread was what fantasai brought up, about which wins
>> when there are *no* declarations and the initial values differ between
>> the two sets.
>
> I’m not saying there is another issue here, just that the discussion
> (apparently) relies on assumptions of what some spec is gonna say in the
> future. I’d just like to know what the assumptions are so I (and other
> people) can follow the discussion :)

I've already gone over this earlier in the thread.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 00:54:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:21 UTC