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

> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]


> Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out.  You just seemed particularly
> interested in the ability, and I happened to be responding directly to
> you, so I asked for use-cases.

I am but it's also quite possible that the use-case I see has nothing to do
with Simon's; I suspect his is visual and mine is much more general. I 
assume giving authors the ability to style all images - whether 'foreground' 
replaced elements or background images - is valuable. Today, I can set opacity 
on an img element, give it a border, transform it etc. But if I want to rotate 
an image and tile the result as a background then I do need to make a new image. 
If it'd make authors' lives easier to bridge this discontinuity then 
background-transform is progress but a very limited subset of what's possible.

But this all also assumes that CSS styling can substitute for enough of the 
adjustments authors typically do to their background images to be valuable
in day-to-day use.

Even if not, I'm still uncomfortable with specializing transforms for backgrounds. 
Use-cases would indeed be welcome so we understand why transforms - a fairly recent 
feature - needs this but not opacity or other effects authors also apply to background 
images in their favorite editors.

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:37:05 UTC