- 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