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

On 21/1/12 18:01, L. David Baron wrote:
> 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
> 

Speaking of 3D transforms, the same grammar is duplicated in perspective-origin which *is* two dimensional. [1]

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#perspective-origin

-- 
Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)

Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:58:59 UTC