Re: [css3-transforms][css4-background] Should the spec have {background,transform,perspective}-origin-x/y

On Oct 12, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

>>>> So I'm tagging this thread as [css4-background] as well, which I
>>>> think should interest some additional folks in the conversation.
>>> 
>>> The main issue with background-position-x and background-position-y
>>> is that they prevent the introduction of logical-keywords positions,
>>> something the i18nwg has been requesting for many years and which
>>> we deferred from L3 to L4. There's some discussion of the issue here:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jun/0498.html
>> 
>> I can imagine cases where you want transform-origin to be writing-mode
>> aware. For example, I might want to spin a line of text around the 5th  
>> letter.
> 
> Agreed. Due to things like that, we should generally stay away from
> introducing *-x and *-y properties, especially since they don't add
> anything new to the platform now that we have variables.
Or you come to the opposite conclusion, now that we have transition and animation.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> In any situation where we are tempted to add a pair foo-x and
> foo-y properties as longhands to an existing shorthand of the type
> "foo: x y;", we need to remember that users can get the exact same
> effect by manually setting "foo: var(x,0) var(y,0);" and then using
> the var-x and var-y properties the way they would
> have used the foo-x and foo-y properties.
> 
> - Florian
>

Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 14:08:14 UTC