Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/1/12 18:04, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> (Also, the background-position syntax doesn't make sense to me.  It
>> allows "left 10% bottom 10%", which is the same as "10% 90%"; but
>> doesn't allow "10% 5px 10% 5px", which is an effect that's not
>> obtainable without using calc().
>
> So? What's the problem if this case needs calc()? How is calc() a hurdle?
> I think calc(10%+5px) calc(10%+5px) is *much* more readable than 10% 5px 10% 5px, which I had a really hard time figuring what you expect it to do (and I'm still not sure I got it right).

I agree.  By the same token, I think "calc(100%-5px) calc(100%-5px)"
is more understandable than "right 5px bottom 5px", so I don't see a
need for the three- or four-value syntax at all.  "right 5px bottom
5px" looks like four separate positions, not two.

Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 17:06:14 UTC