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

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> [Tab Atkins Jr.:
>> Nah, the (implicit) proposed solution patches calc() to work in the
>> intuitive way for <position>, so <percentage>s and <length>s are tracked
>> separately in calc() and then applied as two steps.
>
> Intuitive for whom? I'd love to see how many authors gets this one right.
> As noted in a separate thread, it is natural to think of CSS functions as
> JS functions, especially this one. I'm willing to bet you a bottle of wine
> in Paris* that most people will expect the exact results Brian expects.
>
> *: of my choice...

So you're saying that most people would expect this?

+------------+     +------------+
|    +------+|     |           +------+
|    |      ||     |           |      |
|    |      ||     |           |      |
|    +------+|     |           +------+
|            |     |            |
+------------+     +------------+
  left 100%          left calc(100%)

~TJ