- From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:15 +0300
- To: "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Sorry for the misunderstanding. But while we are at it, please take notice of what is described at quirksmode.org. On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:41:12 +0300, Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> wrote: > > Emrah BASKAYA wrote: > >> What Kelly Miller means is, there should be a third option where the >> image is fixed relative to the ELEMENT and not WINDOW, and had been >> outlined very nicely by Peter-Paul Koch at >> http://www.quirksmode.org/css/background.html . >> >> He says there should be a third option for the background-attachment >> properties, that is what Kelly is talking about, I believe. >> >> I had earlier read this at quirksmode and I really like the idea, but I >> am sure someone on the list will manage to find a fundemental flaw >> with the idea that I possibly could never think of. >> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:44:17 +0300, Kelly Miller >> <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Actually, no, that's not what I'm saying. What you decribe is the new > background-attachment value 'local' (this is actually what IE uses for > the value of scroll). What I mean is something that works like this new > local value, but is fixed with regards to the window. But logically, if > a background is attached relative to the window but scrolls, it's > actually attached relative to the DOCUMENT (or the root element, > technically). What I'm suggesting is a value like this; it would make > it easier to line up background images in layouts where normally slicing > would be needed. > -- Emrah BASKAYA www.hesido.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 18:52:40 UTC