W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] Behavior on UAs without 3D support

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 18:32:27 -0700
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, public-fx@w3.org
Message-id: <7D69FF5F-9A15-4F12-88F4-F681D6847443@me.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
On May 1, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> On 5/1/12 9:21 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>> On May 1, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/1/12 5:25 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>>>> 3) 3D transform functions are treated as invalid if a UA just supports 2D. In this case any property settings are rejected if a 3D transform was found. Independent if 2D transforms are included in this list as well. This gives the author the possibility to provide two different transforms. One for UA's with and one for UAs without 3D support:
>>> 
>>> This seems like the right approach to me for a UA that doesn't want to do 3D.  This is certainly how it would work if they were separate modules and the UA just did not support the 3D module.
>>> 
>>> -Boris
>> 
>> But what about printing?
> 
> I'm not sure what the issue is with printing.  How is printing different from screen in this case?

It's not uncommon for UAs to use a different display technology for printing and drawing to the screen, and in such cases support for 3D rendering when printing is less likely. WebKit on Mac, certainly, doesn't support 3D when printing.

> 
>> Also, if we do this, I think we also need a media query that allows an author to provide 3d and non-3d style rules.
> 
> The @supports rule would cover this, no?

It could, yes.

Simon
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 01:33:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 May 2012 01:33:04 GMT