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: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:48:02 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimvpXZjnA4kWw6DwO1FWo8SnnC=RKg5dt7N8Lh1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, 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 Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> If we decide that background-transform is valuable, then I think we'll have a very hard
> time rejecting background-opacity (which I believe we've done in the past).

Given that adding opacity to an image is something pretty useful in
general (I can definitely see the use in border-image, for example), I
don't think that background-opacity has much promise.  That's
definitely something that should be generalized if we accept it.


> However, it's still not obvious to me that transforms to image applied via either
> @image rules or a functional syntax would affect the orientation of the
> background tiling grid, whereas background-transform would, I think.

If we use Sylvain's idea of a more general @image rule that could take
these properties, then transform-aware tiling can be applied there.
It would then be an image with definite dimensions but infinite paint,
and could be used with background-repeat:no-repeat just fine (or
background-repeat:extend, if we keep the current behavior where
no-repeat chops any paint outside the image box).  That seems to solve
the tiling-grid problem fairly elegantly, letting us keep any magic
behavior out of the background-repeat property.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:48:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT