RE: [css4-background] background-position-x and background-position-y or logical directions

[Brad Kemper:]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Speaking for ourselves I think we have established we are willing to
> > drop features to the extent there is a standard equivalent e.g. see
> > the legacy IE filter property in
> > IE10 [1]. I cannot say whether or when we would flip this particular
> > switch at the Moment but in principle we have no opposition to
> > dropping support for legacy features given solid interoperable standard
> alternatives.
> 
> I think webkit never drops anything though. I suspect that would cause them
> drag down the advancement of logical sides in background-position (start,
> end, head, foot), unless a way can be found for them to peacefully coexist
> with background-position-x and background-position-y.

Past/current WebKit policies should not really be a decision factor. The reason
we suspect WebKit folks might object should be though: a large amount of existing 
content. If a new proposal were to extend the syntax that is already supported in 
a backward-compatible manner - i.e. existing content remains valid and renders the 
same - I don't see why anyone should object. Now, if the proposal involves a 
compat-breaking syntax makeover I suspect I would agree with such objections. 

But if we do need to break compatibility - e.g. because there is no good way to 
align the feature with current CSS requirements - then, as fantasai and Tab noted, 
why not address the use-case properly? 

Either we do not want to leave content behind and we must be backward-compatible.
Or we want a long-term standard solution to spriting and we should not shoe-horn 
ourselves into background-position hacking. Wouldn't spriting be useful in non-background
scenarios?

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 22:35:07 UTC