W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

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

From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:20:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4F1D96CF.8020604@gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 23/1/12 18:58, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> 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.

I don't think it's debatable that keywords are way more readable than 
percents. Of course, using a preposition (`5px from right`) would make 
it even more readable, but would be verbose and would probably require 

In any case, we are way offtopic. :) If you disagree with the 
background-position syntax, please start a new thread about it (tagged 
with [css3-background] or [css4-background])

Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 17:20:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:10 UTC