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

Re: [css3-transforms] Should rotate3d be listed as a primitive?

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:52:53 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxnVYJ1c0notxBfqOu_f2g6gSA06QXy71a36hfgAR5Eecw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Zbarsky <dzbarsky@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:17 PM, David Zbarsky <dzbarsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rotate3d is not listed as transform function primitive at
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/#transform-primitives, yet
> rotate3d(1, 1, 1, 0) is provided as an example of an identity transform
> function at
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/#TermIdentityTransformFunction
> Should rotate3d be a primitive?

Yes, I think so.  Also, probably perspective() should be defined as
primitive there, although it would have only itself as a derivative,
because otherwise AFAICT it can't be interpolated.
Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 12:53:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT