Re: [css3-background] background-position-x background-position-y

On 02/15/2012 04:56 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:04:26 +0100, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> [Florian Rivoal:]
>>
>>> Three browsers / two engines (trident and webkit) support background-
>>> position-x and background-position-y, and do so unprefixed.
>>>
>>> If people against it can convince people shipping it to drop support, I'd
>>> be satisfied, as that would force authors to move back to standard
>>> compliant ways of doing the same thing.
>>>
>>> Since I doubt this will happen, I'd like to have it specified.
>>
>> If it does cause breakage then that does sound reasonable. Do you have examples?
>
> Sure. All mobile gawker properties are affected (m.gawker.com, m.gizmodo.com,
> m.lifehacker.com...). The smartphone version of google's search page used it
> for a while too (it appears to be gone now). In both cases, it is used for
> spriting purposes, and not supporting it makes the page ugly and
> dysfunctional.
>
> I have also pasted at the bottom of this mail a list of sites out of alexa's
> top 10000 that grep positively to background-position-(x|y). Not all of these
> are broken due in browsers that don't support the properties, but it illustrates
> that the cat is out of the bag.
>
>> Also, does your subject line header indicate you want to address this in the current level?
>
> I have no strong opinion about this. If it can be done in the current level
> without delaying it, why not. Otherwise, next level is fine.

It may or may not delay REC, but it will certainly delay CR. CSS3 Backgrounds
and Borders is feature-complete, and has been stable since 2010. Adding this
will destabilize it again. I do not care whether it delays REC or not, I do
not want to pull this module back to Working Draft.

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:26:57 UTC