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
or
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.
Simon