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

On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

>> 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.

If we decide that background-transform is valuable, then I think we'll have a very hard
time rejecting background-opacity (which I believe we've done in the past).

However, it's still not obvious to me that transforms to image applied via either
@image rules or a functional syntax would affect the orientation of the
background tiling grid, whereas background-transform would, I think.

Simon

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:41:50 UTC