- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:42:15 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:40 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm probably damning your idea to an instant rejection from Brian by agreeing with you, but I have stated before that we 'nearest-corner' and 'farthest-side' are not that useful. The only time you can see the difference between them and 'cover/contain' is when the bg-position is off-center, and you see them get clipped in generally un-useful ways. >> >> If we had only 'cover' and 'contain', AND changed 'contain' to mean "contain within the sides that you are not moving towards via bg-position", then you would be keeping it both useful and simple, and would continue to let authors get the most popular combinations of side-based and corner-based sizing and clipping. > > Once again, we have a WG resolution on radial-gradient functionality. > I'm not going against the WG resolution and changing any of the > functionality; the only thing left to do is settle on the new syntax. > Any new functionality requests will be addressed in level 4. I don't recall a resolution to freeze all aspects of all features while still in working draft.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 17:42:49 UTC