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

Re: [css3-transforms] translate() vs. translate3d()

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:07:01 -0800
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B2B1D1D9-2C33-4C60-B3E0-DB92FBA32B88@adobe.com>

On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Christoph Päper
> <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
>> Simon Fraser (2012-02-09 09:00):
>>> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/#two-d-transform-functions>
>> I haven’t cared about the transform (or animation) specs at all. I took a first look at the combined spec right now and I’m wondering:
>> Why is it
>>  rotate(α, tx, ty)   or   rotate(α)
>> but
>>  rotate3d(x, y, z, α)
>> i.e. reversed order of angle and origin – or more generally: why are 3D functions not mere extensions of 2D functions with additional z parameters?
> Argh, the commas, they kill me.
> Please please please remove the comma between tx and ty, so rotate() a
> two-arg function.  Then remove the commas between x, y, and z, so
> rotate3d() is a three-arg function.

Well, I choose the same syntax rules as for the other transformation functions. Also, I still think it is better to have a general definition like CSS Values [1] has it, instead of having different notations all over the place and confuse authors when they have to set a comma and when not. I wouldn't even care if there should be commas between transformation functions. But I don't want to reopen the discussion on this place :).


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#functional-notation
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 23:08:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:55 UTC