- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:48:13 +0100
- To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
[Please don't cc: people who are on www-style anyway] On Feb 6, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > We have a perspective() function already for transforms. Why do we > also need a separate 'perspective' property? If I want something like > > <div style="height:100px;width:100px;perspective:1000px"> > <div style="height:100px;width:100px;background:lime; > transform:rotatex(45deg)"> > Some text</div></div> > > why can't I just do > > <div style="height:100px;width:100px;background:lime; > transform:perspective(1000px) rotatex(45deg)"> > Some text</div> > > instead? Handling of 'perspective' seems to complicate 3D transforms > significantly, particularly the way it only applies to children and > not other descendants, and I don't understand the benefit. The point of the perspective property is to provide a common perspective for child elements (and, if you're in a 3d rendering context, for all members of that context). This is especially useful if the children have different x/y offsets due to normal CSS layout; they'll still share a common perspective origin. This avoids the need to have multiple transformed elements all specify perspective() in their transforms, with possibly different perspective origins. Simon
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 19:49:14 UTC