- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:58:16 -0500
- To: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:04 PM, David Perrell<davidp@hpaa.com> wrote: > Hmm, I kinda prefer the more general background-flip I described earlier. Heh, thought you probably would. I'm just addressing the use-cases that I see as most common here. >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. Well, background-repeat is *symmetrical* top-bottom or left-right. Mirroring isn't - it inherently favors a particular half. That said, I don't think it would be particularly bad to just say that it always takes the left or top, so we could simplify it to just mirror-x and mirror-y (and plain 'mirror' for the quadrant mirroring). I suppose we can do that - it cuts down on the number of keywords, and makes a nice parallel with background-repeat. > 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. Better would be to do that with Webkit's support for reflections through -webkit-box-reflect. I think they plan on speccing that? ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 14:59:17 UTC