- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:08:48 +1000
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: Jonathan Snook <jonathan@snook.ca>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 18/08/2011 12:36 PM, Brian Manthos wrote: > What makes you afraid of moving it to CSS4? Is it because CSS3 is > taking too long to progress? Isn't it counterintuitive to add *more* > to CSS3, thus making it even *slower* to progress? Instead the model > (IMO) should be more discipline about keeping things scoped so that > they *can* move more quickly and so that CSS.Next isn't multiple > decades away. Get CSS3 shipped since the below spec looks rather empty. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css4-background/ >> If the issue is to address them within the current spec, then I >> would expect that it would be trivial to address it for >> background-position-x/-y on top of addressing it for the other >> shorthand properties. > > I'm saying serialization troubles under control is more important > (IMO) than adding background-position-x and background-position-y. > Can they progress on parallel tracks? Sure. But making > serialization harder by adding more complexity just seems like, > again, the wrong path to take. Thank you Brian. The examples you gave has made me think. At this moment of time, neither 'background-position-x' nor 'background-position-y can be expressed in shorthand values for 'background' I'm not proposing any syntax (just made up to express what I see as an issue) but something like the following would have to appear in a 'background' shorthand declaration. background: url(wow.png) x(20px) no-repeat; background: white url(who.png) y(10%); background: url(we.png) xy(20px, 10%) repeat-y; Since the shorthand notation of 'background-position-x' or 'background-position-y has not been addressed or analyzed, then it not wise to add such properties to CSS3. -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 12:09:04 UTC