- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:56:14 -0700
- To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote: > > 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. Oh, also we already have background-position: bottom right; Adding another property that takes the same values would be a bit confusing, I think. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 22:56:49 UTC