W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-images] <position> grammar is duplicated or points to the wrong spec

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>
Message-ID: <20120121160117.GA15571@pickering.dbaron.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


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 16:01:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:10 UTC