- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:08:13 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "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 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. I don't disagree with you (not yet, at any rate...) so there is no point in pursuing that arguing. Again, it's not about convincing *me* of the way you think it should work, it's about convincing me that someone who's never used calc() in background-position before will get it right i.e. what I think of as being intuitive. It seemed much more of a 'this bit is intuitive once you're already familiar with the feature' to me. In that respect, I support being consistent though I'm worried about changing calc() to make background-position consistent having side-effects elsewhere calc() can be used. Might be an unwarranted fear but I'd rather not change it again.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:08:49 UTC