- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 18:21:39 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, public-fx@w3.org
On May 1, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/1/12 5:25 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> 3) 3D transform functions are treated as invalid if a UA just supports 2D. In this case any property settings are rejected if a 3D transform was found. Independent if 2D transforms are included in this list as well. This gives the author the possibility to provide two different transforms. One for UA's with and one for UAs without 3D support: > > This seems like the right approach to me for a UA that doesn't want to do 3D. This is certainly how it would work if they were separate modules and the UA just did not support the 3D module. > > -Boris But what about printing? Is it OK for a UA to treat 3D transforms as invalid in one context but not another? Also, if we do this, I think we also need a media query that allows an author to provide 3d and non-3d style rules. WebKit already has such a media query with a a -webkit prefix, "-webkit-transform-3d". Simon
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 01:22:10 UTC