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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:59:32 -0800
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBiSv5JriNQ=GpGctG-8r64BpYKhd8mNoq5hWhEZ5aqNA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Tab:
>> <position> is the *only* place in CSS where this problem (percentages treated differently than equivalent lengths) crops up, so
>> attempting to reason from 'width' isn't very useful.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> The background-position property is the only place.
>
> The <position> token isn't the problem.

Nope, 'object-position' has the same problem.

Most other places that use <position> don't show the problem because,
as you pointed out previously, the "subject" being positioned is 0x0
anyway, so percentages go back to acting the same as lengths.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:00:34 UTC