- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2024 00:57:10 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
This use case is covered by the `@image` rule we [resolved on](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6807#issuecomment-1248380039). Examples: ```css @image --rotate { rotate: 45deg; } @image --flip-vertically { transform: rotateX(180deg); } .element { mask-image: image(url('mask.png'), --rotate); mask-size: cover; } .element { mask-image: image(url('mask.png'), --flip-vertically); mask-size: cover; } ``` This has two major advantages over new properties: 1. It can be used everywhere were images are allowed and is not limited to masks. 2. It allows all kinds of image manipulations and is not limited to rotations. So I vote to close this in favor of the more general solution. Sebastian PS: @Thiago2104 Your second example rotates the image by 90 degrees along the y-axis, which effectively makes it invisible. -- GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10024#issuecomment-1986655335 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 9 March 2024 00:57:11 UTC