- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:17:37 -0800
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday 2012-01-24 19:03 +0000, Brian Manthos wrote: > Tab: > >Brian: > >> The fact that "background-position: 10%;" and "background-position: calc(10%);" > >> can result in differ renderings is perhaps unfortunate, but required by the specs as I read them. > > Yes, it's currently required by the specs. I've stated this several times. > > You might be saying that. My interpretation of David's comments > is that he was saying otherwise. I don't understand the current calc() spec well enough to comment on what it says. However, I firmly believe that if Tab's assertion about what it currently says is correct (which I believe is at the very least what it's trying to say), then the spec is wrong and needs to be fixed. I think calc() should not have any discontinuities, i.e., putting "calc()" around a valid value shouldn't change its behavior, and putting a "+1px" inside a calc() should move change the result by 1px. > Tab: > > This is why I'm proposing to *change* the specs here, to match > > what Gecko currently does. > > Ok, well I think you're both wrong. It's the wrong direction for > CSS to fundamentally change (in this case add functionality to) > the behavior of one property by doing parlor tricks with calc in a > different module. It's not at all changing the behavior of a property -- it's keeping that property's behavior as it always has been, since CSS1 in 1996. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:18:16 UTC