- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:45:36 +0000 (UTC)
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, fantasai wrote: >>> >>> background-attachment: fixed; /* fixed wrt viewport, which has the >>> effect of being >>> fixed wrt the border when the parent scrollbox >>> isn't being scrolled -- which covers frames behavior*/ >>> background-attachment: attached; /* hypothetical CSS3 property: fixed >>> wrt border */ >> >> background-attachment: fixed; /* fixed wrt viewport */ >> background-attachment: scroll; /* fixed to element */ >> background-attachment: content; /* fixed to content */ >> >> I don't understand why one is better or worse than the other. I seem to >> recall the decision to define it the way it is was more based on the >> weight of existing implementations at the time than preferences either way >> on the issue, since the two options are pretty much symmetric. > > Having the 'scroll' keyword mean fixed-to-content would, I believe, be > more consistent with authors' expectations because fixed-to-content is > the behavior you get when you specify 'scroll' on the main canvas -- or > on any non-scrolling block. In these (most common) cases, 'scroll' _most > notably_ causes the text and the background scroll together in all > implementations. If you define it to mean fixed-to-element, then this > interpretation breaks on scrolling elements. /That/ is the problem. I understand what you are saying. However, I don't see it as very important, especially given that the group's investigations suggested that on the whole the opposite effect is more commonly implemented in UAs that have faced the problem. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 09:45:38 UTC