W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

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

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:25:41 -0800
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <47C73FCC-B7C6-49FD-BF8B-19B779769ED6@me.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
On Dec 5, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

>> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:39 PM
>> To: Sylvain Galineau
>> Cc: Rik Cabanier; Simon Fraser; Leif Arne Storset; Brad Kemper; www-
>> style list
>> Subject: Re: background-transform (Was: Re: [css3-images] Repeating
>> oblique gradients)
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Sylvain Galineau
>> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>> I haven't seen sufficient argument as of yet for including it.  I can
>> be convinced, of course, with some assurance that it would be
>> implemented.
> Can you link to the relevant proposal and the feedback ?

I don't believe there has been a concrete proposal. I presume you are thinking of something like a functional notation for images, like:

  alpha(url(foo.png), 50%); // make the image 50% transparent


  transformed-image(url(foo.png), rotate(45deg)); // rotate the image

I think there's a significant different between this something like background-transform: I see background-transform as affecting the background image tiling grid. I would assume that the bounds of an image described as

  transformed-image(url(foo.png), rotate(45deg));

would be the bounding box of the rotated image, but this would not affect the orientation of the tiling grid, so you'd end up with a diamond grid here.

> Duplicating properties of interest for images across background, 
> border images and every other feature that accepts an image URL 
> seems to be the kind of redundancy a module named 'Image Values' 
> would be written to address. 

I agree, but I don't see too much harm in new properties which share values with existing ones; that's better than a new property with a whole new set of values to learn.


Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 06:26:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:53 UTC