- From: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:04:21 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: | I propose a new background-* property, background-mirror, which takes | the values "mirror-left", "mirror-right", "mirror-top", | "mirror-bottom", and "no-mirror". It defaults to "no-mirror", and | will be set to that value if unspecified in the background shorthand | property. | | The effect of this property is to divide the *box* (not the image) in | half either vertically (mirror-left and mirror-right) or horizontally | (mirror-top and mirror-bottom), then take the entire image in the | specified half of the current background layer and mirror it to the | other side. So, for example, specifying mirror-left will split the | box vertically down the center, take the entire background layer on | the left half, and mirror it onto the right half. "no-mirror" applies | no mirroring. | | In the rendering chain for backgrounds, this property is applied last, | after the background is sized, positioned, repeated, and otherwise | specified. Hmm, I kinda prefer the more general background-flip I described earlier. But, in any case, what's the need for 4 directions? Mirror-x and mirror-y (and just plain 'mirror' for left-to-right *and* top-to-bottom) is easier to remember. Background-repeat goes top->bottom and left->right, it seems sufficient for mirroring to do the same. Background-flip can be useful. Here's a use case: http://hpaa.com/csstest/bgflipwithgradient.htm Sure, the effect is commonly done with an image editor, but why not save time plus 50% on image size and do it with CSS? Flipping an image is pretty trivial. David Perrell
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 01:05:20 UTC