- From: Jaikishan Jalan <jai.ism@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:52:12 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTi=HYy3Pg3pDj=iM5KTggkFwBPLA1enhPto723xd@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for answering my question Francois. Yes, that's one way to address the problem. However, I still want to scale an element with animation. Some may say, a transition property could be set on the element and that would do the animation on margin change. But doing a margin change is not always feasible. I was hoping to see a property, preserve-text similar to that of preserve-3d, that when applied to a textual element will never change the font size no matter what transformation is applied to it. On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM, François REMY > <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:50 AM, François REMY > >> <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote: > >> > It works in CSS 2.1 and don't use the non-widely implemented > >> > to-be-standardized CSS3 transform property. > > > >> I don't understand this comment - the Transforms spec was accepted by > >> the WG, and transforms are fairly widely implemented at this point. > >> It's still in WD for now, but it'll probably start moving upwards in > >> the next few months. > > > > It's only intended to reflect a practical 'real life' implementation > point > > of view. > > If you take 10 visitors, 5+ of them will use a browser that don't support > > CSS 3 > > Transforms, even prefixed (IE8-, FireFox 3.0-, ...). > > > > This makes the use of CSS Transform a no-go for any essential > functionnality > > of your website. (It would be even clearer if vendor-prefixed properties > > only > > worked in a "dev" mode, or by 'page-specific' / 'site header ' opt-in but > > it's > > not the case, for political and historical reasons). > > > > CSS 2.1 is supported by all browsers used today, or nearly. I just meant > > that, > > not anything else ;-) > > Okay, but that's true of most CSS3 stuff, almost none of which is > supported by IE8 and lower, or earlier versions of other modern > browsers. > > It just seemed an odd statement. ^_^ > > ~TJ > > -- Thanks, Jaikishan
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:52:46 UTC