- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:42:53 +0200
- To: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Bos [mailto:bert@w3.org]
> Another idea to consider, discovered by Tantek Celik, is that in many
> cases, the images are mirrored or rotated versions of each other.
> Including the possibility to mirror and rotate images in the syntax
> might or might not make the syntax easier.
The syntax can be easy if you build on some 'default' behavior.
For example if you type (I'll use corner-image as property)
corner-image: <image> <starting corner> <mode> <corners>;
Where <starting corner> specifies the initial corner, the algorithm
should rotate for the other corners by taking it from there. So if I
write
one{
corner-image: url(myCorner.png) top-left;
}
two{
corner-image: url(myCorner.png) top-right;
}
image is
+#
##
Renders
+#-----#+
## ##
| one |
## ##
+#-----#+
#+-----+#
## ##
| two |
## ##
#+-----+#
The algorithm just flips the image horizontically and/or vertically for
the next corner.
The <mode> flag can define the flipping algorithm. Possible values I
see are
clockwise
counter-clockwise
horizontal-mirror
vertical-mirror
So
three{
corner-image: url(myCorner.png) top-left counter-clockwise;
}
four{
corner-image: url(myCorner.png) top-left vertical-mirror;
}
Renders
+#-----##
## +#
| one |
#+ ##
##-----#+
+#-----+#
## ##
| two |
## ##
+#-----+#
A combination of vertical-mirror and horizontal-mirror is not allowed;
the equal effect is produced by clockwise.
My point is mostly about investing on modes in the spec.
Just passing by,
Manos
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 05:43:28 UTC