Re: [css3-background] New use case for background-position-x (&y!)

Lee Kowalkowski wrote:
> On 9 November 2010 15:36, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> If I'm using backround-image for spriting, I'm not going to be very
> interested in the other background properties am I?  How are they
> relevant?  Authors will rarely specify every available background
> property on an element, so I don't really see any argument there.


You have really missed the points raised by others regarding the other 
background properties. They must work individually and together as 
well as work in one background declaration.



[snip
>> If it is not good enough, then look towards the upcoming image fragments spec,
> 
> Each fragment of my image has to be served separately?  No thanks, how
> is that viable?  What on earth would I write all that code for?  52
> uris?  I only need 1, and 17 rules.  How can you recommend an
> alternative approach that 1/ lacks support and 2/ doesn't really make
> coding easier, or more right - whilst keeping a straight face?


How about 4 images and 13 positions. This is 1 better than your case 
which requires 18 rules. A demo.


<http://css-class.com/x/grid4x13.htm>


So who says one must use 52 rules?


[snip]
> What would the objection be then?  Or is this working group just
> generally averse to imaginative uses of CSS?


No, they are adversed to being attacked by developers on one extreme 
and the web community on the other extreme. I should state that 
css3-background may be one of the first specs by the CSS WG that 
becomes a recommendation for the first time in 12 years. The last was 
CSS2 in May 1998. Many developers would love to have css3-background 
reach PR or REC since then vendor prefixes could be dropped for things 
like border-radius, box-shadow and background-size.



-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 04:13:41 UTC