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

Re: [CSS-transforms] rotate(<angle>[, <translation-value>, <translation-value>])

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:36:48 -0800
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <95C5D8DF-8BC7-4217-A991-B9B18EBCED4D@adobe.com>
Maybe I can find some working that it would be required for CSS Transforms used with SVG, but is optional for other cases. Would this change help?


On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:43 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

> On Wednesday 2012-02-15 12:27 -0800, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>> I tried to describe the benefits for CSS[2] but more necessary the
>> requirements for SVG [3]. This is the last blocking issue for
>> compliance between CSS Transforms and SVG Transforms for
>> transformation functions. That is the reason why I think it is
>> necessary to leave it in. Like I wrote before, it doesn't break
>> existing content. These are just two more optional arguments, and
>> it is easy to implement. It is already done for the SVG
>> implementation on all browser anyway. So SVG authors would expect
>> that it works on CSS as well, beside that if it is not supported
>> we would break existing SVG content. And for SVG a rotate with
>> three arguments is used a lot!
> My main concern here is that adding additional requirements on
> implementations might add additional barriers to unprefixing.
> In particular, the working group this morning did not achieve
> consensus on the idea that we might make any exceptions to the rules
> on dropping prefixes.  This means that we have to follow the rules
> stated in http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-css-2010-20110512/#testing

> (that's the current version of http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#testing ):
>  # To establish and maintain the interoperability of CSS across
>  # implementations, the CSS Working Group requests that
>  # non-experimental CSS renderers submit an implementation report
>  # (and, if necessary, the testcases used for that implementation
>  # report) to the W3C before releasing an unprefixed implementation
>  # of any CSS features. Testcases submitted to W3C are subject to
>  # review and correction by the CSS Working Group. 
> While this doesn't explicitly say anything about whether the
> implementation is required to *pass* the tests per that
> implementation report, I suspect it might be interpreted that way.
> (It's a new requirement since the last unprefixing has happened.)
> So from a spec advancement perspective I'd be ok with this change
> only if either (1) the spec explicitly says that implementations are
> not required to support the additional 2 arguments in order to
> unprefix their implementations of the transform property (though
> they'd still be required to do so to fully conform to the
> specification) or (2) /TR/CSS/ is clarified in such a way that this
> isn't an issue.
> That said, I also find the additional parameters confusing, but I
> suppose if SVG has them we're probably stuck with them, and I don't
> plan to object on those grounds since I'm not particularly an expert
> in the area.  (I'd note, however, that they're not at all analogous
> to the extra parameters to rotate3d(), which describe what axis to
> rotate about, not where the center of the rotation is.)
> -David
> -- 
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:37:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:05 UTC