W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:15:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAqX_Wi7ZFTSxyCsHWdh3KM3biyQTPFytqj6xXdSdr09w@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:10 UTC