W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1997

Re: a vote for rotation

From: Brad Chase <bchase@bitstream.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:09:14 -0500
Message-ID: <347C2D89.2F912586@bitstream.com>
To: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
CC: Space Cowboy <spacecow@mis.net>, www-style@w3.org

Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Nov 25,  3:08pm, Space Cowboy wrote:
> > While it's probably quite complex and a little complicated to deal with,
> > wouldn't it be nice if you could have a rotate property in CSS? Even if
> > it's only the cardinal points (0, 90, 180, 270 degrees), I think it
> > would be a real boon to pages.

I like it too.

> Restriction to the cardinal points would not allow smooth spinning. *Not*
> restricting it to the cardinal points, in the absence of some clipping
> mechanism,  would potentially forcea reflow for every iteration of the
> loop, which is unlikely to give the performance you want.

Restriction to the cardinals wouldn't prevent reflow on change of orientation
either. ;-)

This could of course be handled (as I now see you pointed out later in your
response) by putting the rotatining object into a sized/positioned DIV that
would contain the object regardless of orientation.

> It's possible that it could be added as a new form of relative or absolute
> positioning, using rotation rather than translation. That would give defined
> clipping and scrolling behaviour and define a Z-order for cases where the
> rotated text would overlap other content.

That seems like a reasonable starting point.--
    Brad Chase
    Director of Product Marketing
    New Media

    Bitstream Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 1997 09:15:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:45 UTC