- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:49:05 -0800
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 01/07/2010 05:01 AM, Yves Lafon wrote: > >>> right 10px top 10px, here we have something useful, but quite limited by >>> the fact that keywords are imposed as first values. It is also >>> impossible to do 33% -10px top 20px, why? >> >> Because that case is solved by calc(). (Technically right and >> bottom offsets can also be solved by calc(), but it is friendlier >> to math-averse people to allow the use of keywords.) > > Hum, friendlier? When "left 20%" is allowed and not "20% left"? There isn't anything I can do about that part, it's been required due to parsing considerations since CSS2. > And when you need to read the spec to figure out in which direction the > offset in "center 10px top 10px" is taken into account. > Friendliness is clearly in the eye of the beholder :) As Brad pointed out, center plus an offset is not allowed. >> See css3-values for the definition of calc(). >> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/ >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/ >> >>> Also forcing four values in that case would be easier, the three values >>> notation doesn't seem more human friendly :) >> >> I'm not convinced it's better to ignore three-value notations, and >> I don't think this is important enough to change at this point. >> CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders is a Candidate Recommendation. > > If css3-values has to come into the css3-background document at some > point, which is implied by your message, then you will have to modify > this spec anyway. So I don't see the point about keeping things frozen now. css3-backgrounds does not need to be modified to take into account new values from css3-values. That's not how modules work. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 18:49:41 UTC