- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 22:56:23 -0700
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On May 13, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: >> And by the way, even if there was not a 'background-rotate: auto' >> that worked as I described, that need would still be met by >> 'background-repeat:<angle>', but just a little less elegantly, as the >> author could set the gradient angle to zero himself, and then enter >> the angle he wants into background-rotate directly. Et voila, >> gradients aligned to x/y axes, repeated, and then rotated. Do you >> also deny that 'background-rotate' (or perhaps >> 'background-transform', though I think that would be overkill) would >> be good to have on general principles, even if not used with >> gradients? > > > I would like background-rotate to work with any background-image, not just gradients. Exactly. > Within the syntax for a possible background-rotate, it would be good to see the option for background-rotate-origin (working similar to transform-origin in 2D transforms). I would think that with background position, you could get the tiles wherever you want anyway. But it might be useful for animation.
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2011 05:56:57 UTC