- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:15:12 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > [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. No, <position> resolves the same everywhere. The problem that it has with calc(), though, only shows itself in some contexts. Could you please answer the questions I posed, or at least tell me whether the answers I think you'd give (based on your previous emails) are correct? Brian has made his answers clear. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:16:19 UTC