W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] transform-origin syntax: 3D vs. background-position

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:16:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCi5P1wPgeiGeuc0_sGrkFRORMN+JfjDtkzn9+167xgtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:52 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Any solution that involves reverting background-position won't fly -
>> it's been stable for a long time, and is useful.
> But Aryeh is right. Calc() would duplicate the functionality and is even more powerful. And what do you mean with stable if nearly no browser support multiple arguments that get added (does a browser support it at all?)? Just that we have tests for it that no one passes?

calc() does lots of things; it's a powerful syntax.  That doesn't mean
that being able to specify side offsets in a simple way isn't useful.

Firefox supports the full bg-position syntax in nightlies as of today.
 I think Opera does as well.

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:17:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:46 UTC