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

Re: [css3-transform] definition of skewing

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:00:28 -0800
Cc: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <8D5BD8D8-27BF-46B3-BDC9-EE7686AC533E@me.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
Can you point us to a Flash example that uses rotate(a, b)? I'd like to see what it looks like.

Simon

On Jan 17, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>  
> Ř  I don't see a reason to have such a function. If an author wants to do such transformations, he can use matrix().
> Having no rotate(a, b) means that we can’t use a transition or animation.
>  
> Ie if you have an object that rotates into view you want to transition from rotate(0, -90) to rotate(0, 0)
> There is no way to do this operation with the current rotate/skew/translate primitives.
> Doing it through matrix(…) doesn’t work because the transition just interpolates the matrix values (which btw is pretty useless).
>  
> Ř  Again, that's what matrix() is for. A skew(x,y) primitive would always have the issue of ordering between x and y. I think the current primitives are plenty for allowing authors to construct matrices.
> The issue is also with transitions/animations.
>  
> Also, why would skew(x, y) have an issue of ordering? The matrix would be:
> | 1        tan(x)   0 |
> | tan(y) 1          0 |
> | 0        0         1 |
>  
> It doesn’t seem necessary to have a separate skewx/skewy since there is usually no need to concatenate skews…
>  
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 01:01:03 GMT

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