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

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

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:51:10 -0800
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8A13F0222395BD428969E5BA529EFA747766F57A7F@NAMBX01.corp.adobe.com>
But you can already apply a transform to an image element just like you do to a div element.
With background-transform you could transform the background of an element but not the element itself. This is not something that can be done today...

Rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.; Simon Fraser
Cc: Rik Cabanier; Leif Arne Storset; Brad Kemper; www-style list
Subject: RE: background-transform (Was: Re: [css3-images] Repeating oblique gradients)

> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:02 AM

> I kinda like background-transform too.

I like the capability, I'm not sure I like having to add another set of properties just for backgrounds vs. allowing the definition of a named image with all relevant transforms and other properties, definition that could then be referenced anywhere. 

I can do this to some extent in SVG using svgView e.g. I can do http://site.com/image.svg#svgView(transform(rotate(10deg))
and use that anywhere an image URL is accepted but I'd be more comfortable binding the image and the rotation together in CSS and use the result anywhere an image() value is accepted.


Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 00:51:56 GMT

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