- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:21:52 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
There are other concerns before you even get to that. Things like... div { background-image: url(a.png), url(b.png), url(c.png), url(d.png); background-position-x: 1px, 2px, 3px; background-position-y: 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat, repeat, repeat-y; } (a) What should an OM query for background-position return? (I think empty string because it's not constructible.) (b) What should the used value for the x dimension of background-position be for the 4th image? (I think 1px, just like its repeat value is no-repeat.) There are a myriad of cases like these. We've addressed many of them in IE9 and have work to do (IE10+) on others. Whether the WG will agree with our assessments and approach will be fodder for many fun discussions, I'm sure. -Brian -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of fantasai Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:02 PM To: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: Splitting background-position in two different attributes On 08/15/2011 10:28 AM, Brian Manthos wrote: > I think getting the serialization addressed before throwing more into > the entanglement that is background is preferred. Also, I'd like to see a proposal that actually specifies the interaction with the extended background-position syntax that was introduced in L3 and the logical-keyword set that we will presumably introduce in L4. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 19:22:22 UTC