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

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I didn't think there had been a proposal either. But without one I don't expect much arguments for/against so I assumed Tab implied something had been proposed without getting much traction.

Nothing concrete has been proposed, but the idea is pretty simple to
imagine - something like "image-transform(<image>, <transform-list>)"
would do the trick.

I was just saying that, so far, I haven't seen any particular
use-cases for such a thing.  I don't doubt that they exist, but I'd
rather not add anything to a spec that hasn't either convinced me of
its usefulness or been pushed by browser vendors.


> I was actually thinking of an at-rule which maps a name/ident to an image URL and properties that should be applied to this image when the name is referenced e.g. transforms, opacity, width/height...Then background-image, border-image, cursor-image et al. could just use image(<ident>).

This seems like a straightforward application of CSS variables.  We're
trying out a new experimental implementation of them now in Webkit.  I
agree that, since we seem to be forming a functional language for
image construction, we need some short way to refer to an image, so
authors don't have to duplicate long functional expressions.


> That sounds fine. But I'm not sure whether/how transforms affect the image size used for background tiling implies the transform needs to be specified through a dedicated background transform property ? Or do we expect that would be true for backgrounds only ?

I'd probably be okay with a transformed image used in a background
automagically altering the tiling grid appropriately.  I doubt it's
useful to tile a transformed image as a rectangular image the size of
the bounding box.  Or, if it is, perhaps adding a new bg-repeat
keyword that triggers the changed behavior.


> Until then it seems we might be discussing the need for a border-image transform property a year from now and I'd rather not do that.

Heh, me neither.

~TJ