- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 01:10:51 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:26 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 01/24/2012 08:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> 'background-position' is the one and only context in CSS 2.1 (and, as >> far as I know,<position> in general is the only context in all of >> CSS) where percentages are treated different than an equivalent >> length. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#background-position > # Percentages: refer to size of background positioning area minus size > # of background image; see text > > I'm not seeing your problem. Hm. Now that you point at that, I think you may be right. I was thinking of %ages differently, but if they're treated as using that formula to resolve to a <length>, then everything works out again, since both %ages and lengths still have the same 0 point. In that case, um, never mind? (We still need to be vigilant with other uses of percentages to make sure they're consistent with their equivalent unit, of course, but I don't think we have any problematic things right now.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 09:11:48 UTC