- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:52:44 -0800
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:49 pm, Rik Cabanier wrote: > So, if the browser vendors are OK with the background-transform, I think the spec could boil down to: > axial-gradient(<color-stop>, ...) > radial-gradient(<focal-position>, ...) focal point can be dropped if it's considered too advanced. > > rotation and placement would be done through the background parameters. > background-size defines the pre-transformed size of the gradient (default=bounding box) > background-transform transforms the upper left corner of the gradient image > background-origin defines the point where scaling/skewing/rotation happens > background-repeat signals how the gradient is tiled. Gradients would differentiate themselves from images in that they 'extend' themselves to fill the bounds if there is no repeat. I'm not sure that I'm OK with background-transform yet, but I think we need to discuss it independently from gradients. To clarify, I assume that background-transform accepts all the transform functions listed in the 2D transforms spec, but not those in 3D transforms. I further assume that the property is animatable, just like "transform:". This certainly opens up the possibility of lots of neat animation effects, which I like. I also assume that background-transform applies to each background-image separately, if there are multiple, e.g.: background-image: url(foo.png), url(bar.png); background-transform: skewX(20deg), scale(0.5, 2); background-repeat: repeat; This seems reasonable. Simon
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:53:20 UTC