- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:01:17 -0800
- To: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Saturday 2012-01-21 15:33 +0200, Lea Verou wrote: > It seems the grammar for <position> is duplicated in the definition of the `transform-origin` property [1], rather than being deferred to the one that can be found in css3-background [2] > > On the other hand, css3-images do try to point to its definition elsewhere, but they point to css3-values, which doesn't define it [3] > > [1]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-2d-transforms/#transform-origin > [2]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-position > [3]: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#radial-gradients In 3-D transforms, on the other hand, the syntax is actually different since it allows a 3-D point (a value in x, y, and z). It's not necessarily clear to me how this should interact with the new background-position syntax -- it's perhaps a bad result of the suggestion I made to use the same syntax for both (when I was thinking only about 2-D). That said, I'm not sure transform-origin really needs to allow a 3-D point, given that transform-origin doesn't actually add functionality -- it just makes it easier to think about transforms in different ways -- the same effects can always be done using translate. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 16:01:42 UTC