On Mar 5, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On it's own it not too bad, but as a way to disambiguate between two >>>> subproperties in in 'background' that take the same values, it is >>>> inconsistent with any of the proposals to disambiguate <bg-position> and >>>> <bg-size>. I don't think this serves authors as well, ultimately, who >>>> currently have no expectations of how this disambiguation should occur. >>> >>> The position/size disambiguation needs to be more complex, because >>> there is added possibility of confusion. Both properties can have one >>> or two value, so if you see two lengths next to each other, you can't >>> tell whether it's just one property being specified or two being given >>> a single value. Similarly, if you see 3 values you can't tell which >>> property gets a pair and which gets a singleton. >> >> You can if you use the slash the way I was suggesting, which would also be consistent between disambiguating BOTH the <bg-position>/<bg-size> combinations AND the <bg-origin>/<bg-clip> combinations in the same ways. Thus, the position/size disambiguation does NOT need to be more complex than the origin/clip disambiguation. They can both be simple, with a single slash providing a reference point for disambiguation. > > What I meant is that you don't *need* a slash in the origin/clip > situation, since you can rely on a simple ordering. That's not > sufficient for position/size. Ordering-based disambiguation is used > much more commonly throughout CSS, and so should be relied on when > possible. Right, but the part you quoted me on was about how the two situations are not consistent with each other, but could be (very simply). My way is still ordering-based; the order is in relation to the slash.
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 16:26:21 UTC