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

Re: [css3-transforms] interpolation of transform lists

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:22:19 -0700
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <EC739AFB-650C-4D2E-A6BB-C1A915F67DB5@apple.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

On Jul 19, 2012, at 5:51 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 2012-07-19 16:54 -0700, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>> Do I understand your point correctly, that you just want the
>> affected transformation functions to get interpolated as matrices?
> 
> Yes, rather than forcing the entire list to be interpolated as a
> single matrix.

You're complicating the rules by doing this. If I have:

rotate(...) scale(...) translate(...)
scale(...) rotate(...) translate(...)

Do you do two separate matrix animations? Taking that to its logical conclusion, you could end up doing a dozen expensive matrix animations for a long list of unmatched primitives.

Or do you combine unmatching primitives next to each other? That might be a better approach, but it might get confusing for long primitive lists.

We also talked about adding an identity() primitive to make it easier to match up primitives. Identity() would match a primitive of any type. Was that ever done?

-----
~Chris Marrin
cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 16:22:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:57 GMT