- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:21:33 -0700
- 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. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 00:22:25 UTC