W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

Re: [css3-images] element() "ignoring" transforms

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:53:42 -0800
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120305185342.GB27216@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Monday 2012-03-05 10:46 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
> > Regarding the eleemnt() function, CSS3 Images says
> >
> > "If the referenced element has a transform applied to it or an ancestor,
> > the transform must be ignored when rendering the element as an image.
> >
> > I think it's probably worth detailing what it means for a transform to be
> > "ignored". Should it be as if the transform property were 'none'? Note
> > that this would have some additional effects, since a transformed element
> > normally acts as a containing block for fixed-position descendants, for
> > instance (even if it's just an identity transform).
> I should specify that.  The intent is similar to how SVG defines this
> kind of thing; that a "virtual" transform that's the inverse of the
> CTM is applied after the element's transform.  Thus, the side-effects
> you get from transforming the element (like becoming a fixpos
> container) are still preserved.

I'm not sure this is the right way to specify this:  inverting has
different results if the element has or is inside an element with a
sigular transform.  And I think element() should be able to capture
something that's inside a singular transform (despite that that
transform makes the original not show up).


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 18:54:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:56 UTC