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: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:11 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB20C2E@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> I think calc() should not have any discontinuities, i.e., putting
> "calc()" around a valid value shouldn't change its behavior, and

> You're ignoring the first discontinuity that David talks about, which
> is about wrapping a percentage in a calc().

That's not a discontinuity in calc.  It's a discontinuity in background-position.

> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#calc

> [1]# It can be used wherever <length>, <frequency>,
>         <angle>, <time>, or <number> values are allowed.
> [2]# A math expression has a resolved type, which is one of
>         ‘<length>’, ‘<frequency>’, ‘<angle>’, ‘<time>’, or ‘<number>’.
> [3]# The resolved type must be valid for where the expression
>         is placed; otherwise, the expression is invalid.

Again, if you want to change calc (function) in Values (module) in a rational way your best bet is to define a new <token-type> and add it to [1] and [2] accordingly.  You then need to make use of that token type in background-position's grammar and rendering specification.

This is exactly what I proposed earlier.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:37:03 UTC

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