Re: [css-shapes] Functional Notation

On 10/2/13 5:43 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 10/02/2013 11:03 AM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> fantasai wrote:
>>> Couple of implications I noted:
>>>
>>>    1. Because this allows the full <position> syntax, it also lets
>>>       you position things from e.g. the bottom right corner, rather
>>>       than just the top left.
>>
>> I'm not sure this does what you're implying. You could specify the
>> position using those keywords, but that would only give you additional
>> ways of specifying the top left corner of a rectangle, or the center of
>>a
>> circle. It's nice, but it's sugar, not new functionality.
>
>The <position> syntax positions a rectangle with respect
>to another rectangle. I don't think that should change
>just because we're positioning a shape with respect to a
>box, rather than an image with respect to a box.
>
>So all length values would position the top left of the
>shape with the top left of the box, as currently. But
>specifying a different reference corner would both change
>both the shape and the box.

Ah, I haven't used <position> in this sense before. I have to admit I'm
finding it a bit confusing. And looking at some documentation on
background-position, it looks like I'm not the only one who is surprised
by the behavior. But I do see now that it's added functionality.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 20:12:01 UTC