- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:21:58 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
On 01/13/2014 05:46 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 12/31/2013 01:44 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The transform origin of an element is determined by its border box as per CSS Transforms [1]. With setting the transform >> property, the coordinate space of the element (and with it all descendants) is altered. >> >> Lets assume the element is rotated and has overflowing content. >> The overflowing content gets rotated together with the element. >> The origin is still determined by the border box of the element. >> >> Lets further assume the overflowing content is fragmented >> (fragmented over multiple columns on Multi-Column layout). >> How does the transform of the element effect the transform >> of the overflowing content on a different fragment? > > We had a long discussion on a similar problem in Tucson: > http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS/2013/02/21/resolutions-78/ > (I think the spec didn't get updated though. I'll go fix > that.) Looks like we need to revisit how we want to handle > overflowing content. > >> According to CSS Fragmentation, the behavior of Chrome and Safari is correct IMO. The results of Firefox and IE can be more >> pleasant though. Do we consider the behavior of Firefox and IE a bug? > > If the origin is interpreted per fragment, the we need a > definition of the border-box of a fragment consisting only > of overflowing content. I think what Firefox and IE are > doing is implying a zero-height border box as existing on > the page and the overflowing content as overflowing that > implicit box. This is pretty sensible if we're going with > a "per fragment" approach to transforms. Just to wrap up on this, the WG concluded on this solution, and it is now in the spec: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break/#transforms Let me know if anything is still unclear! Thanks~ ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 22:22:26 UTC