- From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:22:33 +0200
- To: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com> wrote: > I definitely agree that there are scenarios for 'flat' as Simon mentioned in his mail [2], but I think these represent the minority case. It seems to me that the only scenario where 'flat' is the desired value is that scenario where the author wants to explicitly flatten a subtree of a 3d model. If the page you're working with has a background on the root element, then it would probably be surprising if the 3D transforms you applied to a descendant tree caused part or all of it to vanish behind the page's background. If the whole page had transform-style: preserve-3d, this is what would happen. If only the elements you mean to apply 3D styles to have preserve-3d, they will not intersect with the page background, which is probably the desired effect. I don't know if this is a minority or not, but I wouldn't think so.
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:23:22 UTC