- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:58:28 +0200
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 6/2/12 18:44, L. David Baron wrote: > On Sunday 2012-02-05 02:07 +0200, Lea Verou wrote: >> Also, this is not a per-transform function issue. It's not something >> that *some* transform functions need (in which case, it would make >> sense to add it as a parameter). It's something *all* transform >> functions need, hence it makes much more sense to be a separate >> property. > > transform-origin isn't strictly needed at all. It's syntactic > sugar. Use of any transform-origin other than the top-left is the > same as adding translate(originX, originY) to the beginning of the > transform list and translate(-originX, -originY) to the end of the > transform list. > > I think providing the syntactic sugar for origins for the simple > case is a reasonable compromise between ease-of-use and complexity, > and I don't see a strong reason to change it. > > -David > Yes, it is equivalent when we are talking about a static transform, but I'm afraid it's not that easy in animations. For example, how would you make an element move around in a circle without wrapper elements and without multiple origins (and of course without rotating the element itself)? -- Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 18:00:12 UTC