RE: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec from Sylvain Galineau on 2012-01-24 (www-style@w3.org from January 2012)

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:42:07 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
CC: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290341B325@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.>


[L. David Baron:]
> 
> On Monday 2012-01-23 12:32 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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])
> >
> > I don't think we should change background-position syntax, if that's
> > what browsers implement already.  I do think we shouldn't copy it to
> > transform-origin, given that browsers haven't implemented it yet.
> 
> Gecko's started implementing the new background-position syntax; I don't
> know if anybody else has.

Support for it shipped in IE9.

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 05:42:43 UTC