- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:47:40 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Brad Kemper: (a) > background-position: 20px /* image position is measured from the left > of positioning area */ > (b) > background-position: right /* image position has a "starting point" on > the right side of positioning area, and picture extends to the left*/ You've omitted that those are abbreviated forms of the property. The full form of those values is: (a) background-position: left 20px center; (b) background-position: right 0px center; The full form makes it much clearer how it behaves. You're welcome to critique the abbreviated forms of background-position as confusing, but as a separate matter from the issue I raised with linear-gradient's first parameter. Also, background-position isn't about extension or direction. It's about the anchoring of a location within the source image relative to the background-positioning-area. As such, there's not the same opportunity for confusion as for linear gradients which have both anchoring and direction.
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 07:48:09 UTC