W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [css3-values][css3-background][css3-transforms] <position> vs. transform-origin

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:11:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAsBnK94=Av3HvkeNz0wu05=3Fx3FS6fq19oVhB8T0yTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:59:52 +0100, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
> wrote:
>> The syntax for transform-origin and perspective-origin seem to be the same
>> as CSS 2.1’s <position> (I haven’t checked in details) but do not call it
>> <position>. Does that mean that they are not extended if css3-background is
>> supported?
>
> I believe so.

Technically, yes.

> The transform-origin value type is different from that of
> background-position in that a third component value represents a position on
> the Z-axis rather than an offset to a preceding percentage/keyword.
> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0195.html> has a
> resolution concerning this.)

I wish we could solve this. :/  The grammatical ambiguity is annoying.
 It would probably be worthwhile to define a <3d-position> type,
though, that just matches transform-origin's current grammar.

> That difference doesn't apply to perspective-origin, though, so that does
> seem to be an issue. Has been reported earlier here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0964.html

Looks like it got forgotten in the craziness of that thread.  It would
indeed be nice (and backwards-compatible) to upgrade
perspective-origin to a <position>.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 23:12:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:07 GMT