- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 01:32:37 +0000
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I'm not arguing with the value of transforming background images. It's missing and is worth doing, of course. I question whether we only want to do so by adding another set of synonyms for the transform properties. Or are we also going to add border-transform for border images ? cursor-transform ? Alternatively, Image Values could allow authors to name a combination of image URL/gradient, transforms, opacity...and then use this image definition in other places like background-image, border-image and any feature that supports image values. I don't mind proposing a syntax but as it seems obvious - to me at least - I assume it has been considered before. I'm mostly curious as to why we're not considering this. Or why not now ? > -----Original Message----- > From: Rik Cabanier [mailto:cabanier@adobe.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 4:51 PM > To: Sylvain Galineau; Tab Atkins Jr.; Simon Fraser > Cc: Leif Arne Storset; Brad Kemper; www-style list > Subject: RE: background-transform (Was: Re: [css3-images] Repeating > oblique gradients) > > But you can already apply a transform to an image element just like you > do to a div element. > With background-transform you could transform the background of an > element but not the element itself. This is not something that can be > done today... > > Rik >
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 01:33:14 UTC