- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:03:03 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Ah, object-position isn't on my radar yet. I would argue that it was a mistake infecting object-position with the same virus that background-position has. -----Original Message----- From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:00 AM To: Brian Manthos Cc: Sylvain Galineau; L. David Baron; www-style list; fantasai Subject: Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec 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 19:03:46 UTC