- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:35:58 -0700
- To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Eric A. Meyer wrote: > > At 10:03 AM -0700 1/29/08, Alan Gresley wrote: > >> Giving the 'background-origin' property an extra value. This does make >> sense. > > Another possibility is to rename what's now 'background-origin' to > 'background-edge' or 'background-bound' (which seems to be what it's > really about) and then have a brand-new 'background-origin' that is > actually used to define the origin corner. The horizontal and vertical > offset values defined in 'background-position' would then be calculated > from the corner defined in 'background-origin', which would default to > 'top left' or 'top-left' or whatever. The disadvantage of this is that it doesn't fall back as nicely. When the offset and the corner are both specified in 'background-position', you lose both at the same time rather than keeping the offset, but offsetting against the wrong corner. E.g. background-position: bottom right; background-position: bottom 10px right 10px; would fall back to the bottom right corner in older UAs. If you split the property to background-origin: bottom right; background-position: 10px 10px; then the fallback positions the image 10px from the top left corner instead. I agree the 'background-origin' name isn't very intuitive. Not sure what would be better, though, given that we also have 'background-clip' which can be set to a different value. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 22:36:34 UTC