- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:06:32 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Agreed. That was my point in the original question ["The css3 backgrounds/borders spec that's already at CR?"]. I guess I should be less subtle. ;) -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brad Kemper Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:43 PM To: Brian Manthos Cc: fantasai; www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: Splitting background-position in two different attributes I think it should be CSS4 then. I would not like the progress of CSS3 B&B towards PR and REC slowed down to add new features. Brad Kemper On Aug 15, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > 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 20:07:01 UTC