- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:37:41 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:25 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 08/04/2011 02:35 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I've been investigating some corner-cases for the element() function, >> because it's not fully specified yet. The current spec has several >> issues attached to that section with demos of each, showing Firefox's >> current behavior for them. I'm going to go over them and ask whether >> each is sane to everyone else. >> >> 1. Using an element with a transform >> - The size of the image is generated from the element's normal >> geometry, ignoring the transform (as normal, since transforms never >> touch geometry). The image itself reflects the transform. This may >> mean that the appearance is chopped up, as the transformed element no >> longer fits within the actual geometry constraints. >> >> 2. Using an element with a transformed ancestor >> - The transform is ignored entirely. Size the image and render the >> element as if it wasn't transformed at all. > > If #1 means what I think it means, then no, that doesn't seem sane. > I'd go with matching the behavior in #2, i.e. ignoring the transform. I agree that ignoring the transform is the sensible thing to do in both cases. Simon
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 02:38:56 UTC