- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:59:10 +0100
- To: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Brad Kemper wrote: > On Mar 25, 2009, at 7:18 PM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Wouldn't it be useful in case where you had, say, a logo watermark >> image centered behind a paragraph, and you didn't want it to be >> clipped or resized if the text was not enough lines to ensure >> otherwise, and you didn't want the paragraph to have a min-height? >> >> You could use something like this: >> p { >> position:relative; >> z-index:0; >> } >> p::before { >> position:absolute; >> z-index:-1; >> content:url(logo.png); >> left:0; >> right:0; >> width:256px; >> margin-left:auto; >> margin-right:auto; >> } >> >> Rob > > Yeah, I guess so. Kind of complicated and less intuitive for authors. > More complicated for implementors otherwise. And also semantically dubious: the P is now both a positioning context and a stacking context, neither of which is necessarily desirable. (In recent years we've seen 'position' increasingly perceived as a panacea to many layout ills but its consequences are more subtle and far-reaching than many authors realize.) Which is not to say that I don't sympathize with implementors over background-clip:no-clip, which would represent a significant extension to the traditional CSS box philosophy. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 04:00:17 UTC