W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-transforms] Initial value of transform-style

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:22:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKA+Axk1rM5NjXSzWOYd1S8WxTPgTEmx-87w9suaPTifnQfbuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I definitely agree that there are scenarios for 'flat' as Simon mentioned in his mail [2], but I think these represent the minority case.  It seems to me that the only scenario where 'flat' is the desired value is that scenario where the author wants to explicitly flatten a subtree of a 3d model.

If the page you're working with has a background on the root element,
then it would probably be surprising if the 3D transforms you applied
to a descendant tree caused part or all of it to vanish behind the
page's background.  If the whole page had transform-style:
preserve-3d, this is what would happen.  If only the elements you mean
to apply 3D styles to have preserve-3d, they will not intersect with
the page background, which is probably the desired effect.  I don't
know if this is a minority or not, but I wouldn't think so.
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:23:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC