RE: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec from Brian Manthos on 2012-02-02 (www-style@w3.org from February 2012)

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:49:36 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB31B17@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.>

> background-position (and other things using <position>) is the only
> place where calc() has this problem.
... that has been discussed so far.

Are you suggesting we guarantee that "no future property of CSS shall have a grammar which allows both <percentage> and <length> in the same location unless <percentage> follows a set of rules defined in section ___."

I'd prefer to see that section written before going down that road of assumptions.  Especially since something like SVG is sure to break it in the future, if not already.

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 17:50:59 UTC