RE: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-3d-transforms] Handling of negative scaling vectors is not specified

Right, it is a <number> but it wouldn't hurt to point out that negative scaling
is OK. Even if only through an example.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Fraser [mailto:smfr@me.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:38 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: www-style@w3.org list
> Subject: Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-3d-transforms] Handling of
> negative scaling vectors is not specified
> 
> The spec doesn't say that the arguments to scale() have to be positive,
> and it's standard graphics behavior for negative scales to flip, so I
> think it's implied already. I'd be fine making it more explicitly
> allowed.
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Oct 12, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> 
> > To conclude on this: this is going to be allowed by the spec, yes ?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sylvain Galineau
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 5:43 PM
> >> To: www-style@w3.org list
> >> Subject: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-3d-transforms] Handling of
> negative
> >> scaling vectors is not specified
> >>
> >> It seems WebKit and Firefox accept negative scaling vectors; both
> >> generate a reflected version of the content but with some
> differences.
> >>
> >> It'd be great to specify the desired behavior. I haven't yet thought
> >> through the options but would appreciate more details on current
> >> implementations.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 23:55:56 UTC