- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:06:53 +1000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brian Blakely <anewpage.media@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On 3/06/2011 1:33 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>
>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Brian Blakely wrote:
>>> Restored support for inline elements should follow an analysis of
>>> current implementations, and either a single implementation is
>>> chosen as the standard, or an amalgam that optimally satisfies.
>>
>> The problem is that there isn't an implementation that makes
>> sense.
>>
>> Consider an inline element split over 2 lines, with a rotation
>> transform. What do you expect to happen?
>
> I would expect the two lines to rotate as though the transform was
> applied to their bounding box, all without disturbing any of the
> content outside the span.
So how many things need to be checked. Would you want transform-origin
[1] to work with rotated inline elements split over 2 lines?
TL---------T---------TR
L----------C----------R
BL---------B---------BR
Split 1:
TL---------T----
L----------C----
BL---------B----
-----TR
------R
-----BR
Split 2:
TL----
L-----
BL----
-----T---------TR
-----C----------R
-----B---------BR
The wider the containing block, the more this goes crazy.
Split 3:
TL----
L-----
BL----
-----T---------TR
-----C----------R
-----B---------BR
[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-2d-transforms/#transform-origin
--
Alan Gresley
http://css-3d.org/
http://css-class.com/
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 05:07:25 UTC