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

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

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:37:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAo2ZvV0Ayrju4V4osGEzFrUB6gpG9VMcbtZoKMth85rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Chris,

I agree that's a much better way of doing skew. It also avoid the
discontinuity that you see if skew approaches 90deg.

I've asked for this in the past but people didn't like it since it didn't
match SVG. Maybe we could give it a different name...

Rik

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>
> > Hi Christoph,
> >
> > I added the two offset arguments for rotate() yesterday. While for
> Rotate3d you specify a vector to define the aches around you want to rotate
> the element in 3d space, rotate() defines an offset to the origin. And you
> rotate the element around this given point. So it is hard to combine both
> functions and separating makes more sense then.
>
> But why add origin to rotate()? Scale is just as affected by origin. And
> with scale there is another common idiom:
>
>        rotate(angle) scale(s) rotate(-angle)
>
> This performs a scale around a different axis, effectively doing a skew
> (and I think it's a more obvious way of doing skew, but that's just me).
> But I wouldn't want a scaleOrientation parameter on scale().
>
> Adding this seems like a mistake...
>
> -----
> ~Chris
> cmarrin@apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2012 00:37:52 GMT

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