W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Splitting background-position in two different attributes

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:08:48 +1000
Message-ID: <4E4D00D0.6090404@css-class.com>
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.


>> 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 

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
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 12:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:03 UTC