- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 02:50:48 +0000
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- 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>
> From: Simon Fraser [mailto:smfr@me.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 6:41 PM > To: Sylvain Galineau > 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). Exactly. At which point I wonder what else authors might want; then what we do when authors really start playing with border-image and want the same capabilities in that context. > > 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. Maybe I'm not following this one. What do you mean by orientation here ? If the image definition says 'use the image at this URL, make it 100x100 then rotate 15 degrees' and the image bounding box adjusts for the transform, wouldn't it tile as you expect ? Or are you referring to something else entirely ?
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 02:51:22 UTC