- From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:08:06 +0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
15.02.2012, 20:26, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>: > On 02/15/2012 04:56 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > >> šOn Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:04:26 +0100, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> š[Florian Rivoal:] >>>> šThree browsers / two engines (trident and webkit) support background- >>>> šposition-x and background-position-y, and do so unprefixed. >>>> >>>> šIf people against it can convince people shipping it to drop support, I'd >>>> šbe satisfied, as that would force authors to move back to standard >>>> šcompliant ways of doing the same thing. >>>> >>>> šSince I doubt this will happen, I'd like to have it specified. >>> šIf it does cause breakage then that does sound reasonable. Do you have examples? >> šSure. All mobile gawker properties are affected (m.gawker.com, m.gizmodo.com, >> šm.lifehacker.com...). The smartphone version of google's search page used it >> šfor a while too (it appears to be gone now). In both cases, it is used for >> šspriting purposes, and not supporting it makes the page ugly and >> šdysfunctional. >> >> šI have also pasted at the bottom of this mail a list of sites out of alexa's >> štop 10000 that grep positively to background-position-(x|y). Not all of these >> šare broken due in browsers that don't support the properties, but it illustrates >> šthat the cat is out of the bag. >>> šAlso, does your subject line header indicate you want to address this in the current level? >> šI have no strong opinion about this. If it can be done in the current level >> šwithout 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 Since this is not a new feature, but a feature that already have multiple implementations, maybe just documenting these implementations would not be too hard or destabilizing? Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:08:40 UTC