- From: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:41:26 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:12:03 +0200, Kelly Miller > <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> wrote: >> Instead of changing background-position, why not leave it and add a new >> property that specifies where background-position is in respect to? For >> example, by default background-position is done from the top left. But >> if you entered top right as the source and used background position, 5px >> 5px would push the image 5 pixels from both the top and the right side, >> and using 100% for the horizontal position would be the same as 0 from >> the top left. In the same way, there could also be bottom left and >> bottom right, allowing positioning images with respect to the bottom >> corners. Maybe even an entry to position from the center as well? > > Why would you need this when we get calc()? > > > --Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> > > > On background-position, what would calc(100% - 25px) mean? How about calc(50% + 40px)? background-position is hard to define in terms of using calc, because of the odd way the system works (where 100% is far to the right, and 100% does not equal the exact width of the object in pixels). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEj5N1vCLXx0V8XHQRAq+lAJwOHoECPqljJ4GpMeojXYKSh2P8CgCgoHvN moftCurWviQCG3N70wpnjGI= =dbiv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2006 04:41:35 UTC