- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:56:52 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:57:43 UTC
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > One approach would be to simply draw the two halves of a split block as if > the transform had been applied before the box was split. > Couldn't the same approach be taken for inlines? This just sounds like a third option. On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 11/16/10 1:23 AM, Simon Fraser wrote: > >> I think handling transforms on split block element is easier, because they >> are not irregularly shaped >> > > Is that true, though? How are blocks splitting across columns any more > regularly shaped than inlines splitting across lines? I think that transforming using the bounding box of the individual boxes is the simplest solution. It does what the developer wants in most cases and has well-defined behavior in the cases where it has unexpected behavior. Also, I think in the cases where it has unexpected behavior, it's relatively straightforward to understand what's going on. It doesn't seem like there was any opposition to this approach in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0615.html, although Boris was maybe skeptical it was actually less confusing. Ojan
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:57:43 UTC