- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:11:47 -0700
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:59:52 +0100, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> > wrote: >> The syntax for transform-origin and perspective-origin seem to be the same >> as CSS 2.1’s <position> (I haven’t checked in details) but do not call it >> <position>. Does that mean that they are not extended if css3-background is >> supported? > > I believe so. Technically, yes. > The transform-origin value type is different from that of > background-position in that a third component value represents a position on > the Z-axis rather than an offset to a preceding percentage/keyword. > (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0195.html> has a > resolution concerning this.) I wish we could solve this. :/ The grammatical ambiguity is annoying. It would probably be worthwhile to define a <3d-position> type, though, that just matches transform-origin's current grammar. > That difference doesn't apply to perspective-origin, though, so that does > seem to be an issue. Has been reported earlier here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0964.html Looks like it got forgotten in the craziness of that thread. It would indeed be nice (and backwards-compatible) to upgrade perspective-origin to a <position>. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 23:12:34 UTC