W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

RE: [css3-transform] definition of skewing

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:35:17 -0800
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8A13F0222395BD428969E5BA529EFA747767253182@NAMBX01.corp.adobe.com>
This would be a lot harder to accomplish in 3d since the z-order would affect all the object on the stage.
People would have to set up perspective and add z to the object in back- and foreground just to get this effect to work properly...

Rik

From: Simon Fraser [mailto:smfr@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Rik Cabanier
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-transform] definition of skewing

On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:


Yes,

Rotate is always around the transformation point.

Rotate(a) is defined through the matrix:
| cos(a) -sin(a) 0 |
| sin(a) cos(a)  0 |
| 0        0          1 |

Rotate(a, b) would be defined as:
| cos(a) -sin(b) 0 |
| sin(a) cos(b)  0 |
| 0        0          1 |

This type of animation is often used in Flash to give the appearance of an object that turns into view.

The hope is that people use 3D transforms to do real 3D, rather than trying to fake 3D with 2D transforms.

Simon
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 20:35:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT