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

Re: [css3-transforms] interpolation of transform lists

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:05:08 -0700
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B7C843AB-3793-49D2-8A26-C4E8F9F3B4B2@adobe.com>
I opened a bug report to track this request.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18366

Greetings,
Dirk

On Jul 23, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:

> 
> 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 22:08:43 GMT

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