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

[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