- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:29:00 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, fantasai wrote: > >>>>You'd have to add an extra element solely for presentation. >>> >>>So how would you do the opposite (image fixed with the border of the >>>element instead of scrolling with the content) without using extra >>>elements? >> >>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. (There's also the problem that the CSS3 Backgrounds Last Call does not include a third value to allow either third possibility, but I suppose one can assume for the sake of argument that it's not really last call.) ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 22:30:30 UTC