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: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:58:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4F3006B4.60008@gmail.com>
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 GMT

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