- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 01:08:22 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Oct 8, 2013, at 12:04 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 10/05/2013 10:36 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>>
>> That is basically 'rect()', isn't it? Rect() has commas to disambiguation itself from the earlier version. Both versions are bad. I don't use it often, because it's dependence on positioning severely limit its usefulness. But when I do, I have to remember what version has commas, and which version is the harder to use one (the old version, which made me do arithmetic). The new version has commas, but that's more unusual in CSS.
>
> No, rect() is weird. The numbers are all offsets from the top/left
> corner. inset-rect() is like margins, each side is inward from its
> respective edge.
>
> Which is why imo the syntax should *be* exactly like margins:
> inset-rect( [<length>|<percentage]{1,4} )
> and fill in the exact same way.
I agree.
Greetings,
Dirk
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 08:08:49 UTC