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

Re: Transforms on inline elements

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:11:04 -0800
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <4E038E55-B9D5-4138-90B1-4624F174E496@apple.com>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Basing what to do off


(or a similar new property) might be interesting. 


On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Couldn't the same approach be taken for inlines? This just sounds like a third option.
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 11/16/10 1:23 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
> I think handling transforms on split block element is easier, because they are not irregularly shaped
> Is that true, though?  How are blocks splitting across columns any more regularly shaped than inlines splitting across lines?
> I think that transforming using the bounding box of the individual boxes is the simplest solution. It does what the developer wants in most cases and has well-defined behavior in the cases where it has unexpected behavior. Also, I think in the cases where it has unexpected behavior, it's relatively straightforward to understand what's going on.
> It doesn't seem like there was any opposition to this approach in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0615.html, although Boris was maybe skeptical it was actually less confusing.
> Ojan
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 01:11:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:40 UTC