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

Re: Transforms on inline elements

From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:36:16 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=TjFMK6vCWHaafSdeSY9yOpfYLEAuGYVYhnPYr@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
2010/11/16 Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>:
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/10 1:09 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>>> For this reason, I propose that CSS Transforms be limited to block-level elements, and inline elements that are never split into multiple boxes (i.e. replaced elements, inline-block and inline-table).
>>
>> Block elements can also be split into multiple boxes: see columns and pagination....
>
> Right. I started to write a paragraph about this, and then removed it for simplicity.
>
> I think handling transforms on split block element is easier, because they are not irregularly shaped. One approach would be to simply draw the two halves of a split block as if the transform had been applied before the box was split.

But then what exactly is the point of 2D transforms? In the context of
page layout, I have always thought that 2D transforms primarily serve
two purposes: (1) to allow fake italics, and (2) to allow glyphs to be
rotated 180 (many IPA letters were obviously originally created this
way). If transforms are only applied to block level elements, however,
then Im not seeing an obvious use. I must be missing something
obvious?
-- 
cheers,
-ambrose
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 06:36:45 GMT

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