W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1999

Re: Rotated Content

From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 13:52:07 -0700
Message-ID: <002301bec728$3edf6680$15a8a8c0@DPER>
To: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:

>No, it wouldn't, because the value of 'right' would be ignored. See
CSS2,
>section 10.3.7.7.

Ah, now I see why I felt compelled to specify margin as zero. It must
have been to provoke clarification of the meaning of "a hypothetical
box that would have been the first box of the element if its
'position' property had been 'static'." The default value of 'left' is
'auto' and I had mistakenly assumed that with height, width, margin,
padding, border and right offset specified then left offset would be
replaced with whatever worked.

>Sounds good. The definition of 'rotation-position' when applied to
>relatively positoned inline elements (i.e., non-rectangular boxes)
would
>presumably have the same meaning as when 'background-position' is
applied
>to the same situation (currently not allowed, but ways to fix this
have
>been suggested in the past).

Yes, that's a problem. And "containing block" is obviously not the
optimum reference area for rotation of inline elements. But whatever
the area, rotation point offsets from upper left and percentages of
height and width offer more versatility than a center point, and they
lose nothing.

David Perrell

BTW, it looks like the 'artificial stupidity' built-in to the MS OE
editor is stripping a trailing "{" and replacing it with a newline.
Received on Monday, 5 July 1999 16:52:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:59 GMT