W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: [css3-values][css3-images] element() function

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:21:33 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim5j2NOShiLzgOZop34akrFSZ2DvuBsVnZnLiug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Well, -webkit-canvas() suggests that we're cool with using things in
>> the page as image sources.
> A -webkit-canvas is not really a "thing in the page". There is no canvas
> element in the DOM.

Oh, huh.  My mistake.  I misremembered how that worked.  I assumed you
pointed it at a <canvas> by id; instead, you specify some name, and
then use a js function to grab a drawing context by that name.

>> Then we have properties like
>> -webkit-box-reflect, which show that we've already got the issue of
>> drawing a single element in multiple places solved in some fashion
>> (though from what I hear, it's not being solved in the way we'd
>> probably want to use for element()).
> I'm glad you brought up -webkit-box-reflect; this is another example of
> rendering a "replica" of something in another place on the page. It would
> be nice if we could unify reflections and element() somehow (without having
> to add another element in the page for the reflection).

Isn't that what generated content is for?

#foo::after {
  content: "";
  position: absolute;
  width: 100%;
  height: 100%;
  top: 100%;
  left: 0;
  background: element(#foo);
  transform: rotateX(180deg);
  /* Stuff to do masking */

This requires either that #foo is also positioned (can just be
relpos), or that we have sufficient control over abspos positioning
roots that we can tell the ::after to just position off of its parent.

This is obviously a lot more complex than just doing
-webkit-box-reflect, but reflection is a relatively complex effect in
the first place.  Most of it is just boilerplate.  (And with mixins,
we can hide away all the boilerplate, too!)

>> So, the will and the techniques are there, is my point.  Webkit
>> probably won't push back on this feature.  ^_^
> No push-back from me, but I'm not convinced that element() is quite right yet.

Could you elaborate?  I'd obviously like to know what isn't right
before I try and spec this.  ^_^

Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 00:22:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC