W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: background-transform (Was: Re: [css3-images] Repeating oblique gradients)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:01:33 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=MhtvoTrsBvOuyAk5_WQTQ3up5dt2fr51X2Lt1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:49 pm, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>> So, if the browser vendors are OK with the background-transform, I think the spec could boil down to:
>> axial-gradient(<color-stop>, ...)
>> radial-gradient(<focal-position>, ...) focal point can be dropped if it's considered too advanced.
>>
>> rotation and placement would be done through the background parameters.
>> background-size       defines the pre-transformed size of the gradient (default=bounding box)
>> background-transform  transforms the upper left corner of the gradient image
>> background-origin     defines the point where scaling/skewing/rotation happens
>> background-repeat     signals how the gradient is tiled. Gradients would differentiate themselves from images in that they 'extend' themselves to fill the bounds if there is no repeat.
>
> I'm not sure that I'm OK with background-transform yet, but I think we need to discuss it independently from gradients.
>
> To clarify, I assume that background-transform accepts all the transform functions listed in the 2D transforms spec, but not those in 3D transforms. I further assume that the property is animatable, just like "transform:". This certainly opens up the possibility of lots of neat animation effects, which I like.
>
> I also assume that background-transform applies to each background-image separately, if there are multiple, e.g.:
>
> background-image: url(foo.png), url(bar.png);
> background-transform: skewX(20deg), scale(0.5, 2);
> background-repeat: repeat;
>
> This seems reasonable.

I kinda like background-transform too.

Note, though, that this does not allow us to simplify gradients, for
the reasons I stated in the previous thread.  Gradients are useful
outside of backgrounds, and there are certain controls that remain
useful in these other contexts, so they should be packaged in with
gradients.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 18:02:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT