- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:28:34 +0000
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[Brian Manthos:] > > Tab: > > > Why is that the "right" answer? > > > > It's the right answer because you're asking for it to be positioned at > > "10%, plus 5px", and it gives you the element positioned at 10% then > > shifted to the right 5px. > > In your opinion. How do you know that's what me or other authors are > asking for? As should be clear from this thread, I don't think most > authors are asking for that at all. > > As you state below, percentages are treated differently than length in > background-position (for better or worse). And I think that's really the surprising part I'm talking about. I don't think it relates to calc(). If percentages are resolved differently in background-position then it can be argued resolving them differently in calc() would surprise the poor author again. Just when they thought they understood background-position, calc() weirds them out. That wouldn't help. So I buy the consistency argument. The suggested result is intuitive *once* you understand how the property works. If there is a bit of a learning hurdle to overcome, it's already baked in there and there is little value in piling on more.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 17:29:09 UTC