RE: background-transform (Was: Re: [css3-images] Repeating oblique gradients)

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 []
> 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