W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] 2D Transform Function rotate

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:18:20 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxmZ9b=pPYbPeU_Pu7uza=NBqtcYLpyLGNaCYTJeM6+0Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, public-fx@w3.org
2012/4/25 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>:
> Hello,
>
> this is about:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css3-transforms-20120403/#two-d-transform-functions
>
> In the previous draft:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css3-transforms-20120228/#two-d-transform-functions
> it was possible to use the quite useful notation
> rotate(<angle>[, <translation-value>, <translation-value>])
> this is now restricted to the SVG content only?
> For other content now the notation is reduced to:
> rotate(<angle>).
>
> For what purpose is the functionality of rotate reduced for other than SVG
> content? Why is this complicated incompatibility between SVG and other
> content introduced in this draft, resulting in a need to implement different
> things, if the property is applied to other formats than SVG?
>
> I suggest to use rotate(<angle>[, <translation-value>, <translation-value>])
> as defined before for all formats because:
> a) this increases the usefulness of rotate
> b) it simplifies the implementation, because there is no need to differ
> between SVG and other document formats.

It's supported for SVG for backward compatibility.  There was
opposition to adding support for it to the CSS version of transforms
on grounds of consistency, and confusion with rotate3d() (which takes
length parameters that means something totally different).  See
discussion:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15508
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0647.html
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 11:19:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT