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

Re: [css3-transforms] Making transform-origin a list, converting transform to comma separated

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:40:47 -0800
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <FB583E55-C453-4ECC-AFE7-96AC500ECB97@apple.com>
To: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>

On 04/02/2012, at 5:13 AM, Lea Verou wrote:

> On 4/2/12 12:19, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Lea Verou<leaverou@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> While comma separation would probably be appropriate, it's not
>> necessary for disambiguation here (unlike all the other examples
>> you've provided).
> 
> My point was that it's necessary for consistency, not disambiguation.

I don't see any strong reason for consistency here. It's already consistent with SVG as you mention, and I don't think anyone is confused. Filters have a similar syntax. Adding commas would be more typing.

>> We should probably have an origin() transform or something that
>> affects all following transforms up to the next origin().
> 
> I see three problems with this:
> 
> - More verbose for the average case (although depends on the statistics, I can only estimate)
> - Can't be partially overridden.
> - Inconsistent with how other properties work
> 
> Admittedly not serious issues, but what's the benefit?

I think both accepting multiple origins (comma separated list) and an origin() method are prone to confusion.

I suspect in most cases it would be more clear to add any origin transformation into the transform function directly (either verbosely with translate(-origin) XXX translate(origin), or enhance the function syntax so that each function takes more parameters).

Dean
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 21:41:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT