- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:06:37 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
[Tab Atkins Jr.:] > > 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. > And it's all *so* intuitive ! :) Joking aside, am I reading correctly that in some cases the <position> value type resolves differently than in others? I'll assume that's both unfortunate and unavoidable and, hopefully, not too surprising in most cases. A list of those properties categorized by how they resolve it would be interesting. Seems like fodder for a blog post, at least.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:07:17 UTC