- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:46:38 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On May 12, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wish you would stop calling it names as a means to try to defeat it. It is no more magic than looking at the information inside a JPG in order to determine what 'background-size:auto' means, or to find an intrinsic aspect ratio which then sets a width or height of an image. In this case, we'd be looking inside a CSS-generated image to determine what the background canvas rotation should be, and then limiting the rotation inside the image to zero, in a happily cooperative fashion. > > I use the term magic because that's what it is - it's a property value > tweaking the behavior of certain values of another property. We try > to avoid this whenever possible and keep properties orthogonal. When > it does happen, it's usually a property specifically designed to > modify a particular aspect of another property in a clear way. This > is instead changing the behavior of a specific kind of value when it's > used in another property. I'm with Tab here. I'd love to see this issue put to rest. Simon
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 16:47:09 UTC