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

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

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:56:09 -0800
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <70BBF881-8D24-4B86-9175-843CA5007604@apple.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>

On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:

> 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...

Maybe, but I'm not sure more API is the way to go. I really wish we could get rid of skew to be honest. I think it's too difficult to get your head around a 2 dimensional skew, much less 3 dimensional! I hate to invoke it's name, but in VRML we had the notion of a scaleOrientation, which was an axis/angle 3D rotation that you would use to set the orientation of the scale application. It gave a really intuitive way of "skewing" an object in 3 dimensions. Maybe that's too much of a change here, and it would more of a divergence from SVG. But I think it would be more intuitive for authors.

-----
~Chris
cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2012 00:58:49 GMT

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