Re: [css3-transforms] skew(<angle>[, <angle>]) (again)

Dirk Schulze:
...
> > This was already proposed as a meaningful interpretation of such a
> > skew transform with two angles:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Dec/0124.html
>
> Even if that makes more sense, this is against what current implementations
> are doing at the moment.
>
> I would agree with Olaf and Aryeh that we could remove it from the spec
> again. Renaming or redefining seems not to be practical at this point of
> time. Most CSS WG members were pretty clear that the specification should
> just specify current behavior of implementations. Maybe we can come up with
> new transformation functions in the next level.
>

If we consider, that it is currently still just an early draft, everybody 
should be aware of any possible changes in future drafts, therefore
I cannot see any problem in redefining obscure things with something
more useful. And this transformation was already removed in 
previous drafts, therefore obviously nobody will rely on this.
Implementations practically do a lot of obscure things, defined somewhere
or not - this cannot be the a criterion. This would prevent any progress
in the whole recommendation/specification process including comments
from interested people, finally resulting in documents not useful at all for
authors, because they either consist of obscure things or everything that 
was already found to be obscure is removed,  what can result  theoretically 
in an empty document ;o)
This means, the quality of related drafts/specifications will drop 
dramatically - well maybe some already follow this cowpath ;o)
It is the wrong approach only to look on current implementations.
I think, the main reason of this draft is to define geometrical
transformations - and following this, one can evaluate, which parts
of the draft or early implementations are meaningful or not and need to
be changed.

But of course, in this case there is no big problem for advanced authors to
use a matrix or a combination of rotation and skewX to get the intended
effect, therefore no problem with any of the three proposed options.

Olaf

Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 10:12:06 UTC