Re: [css-transforms] Making 'transform' match author expectations better with specialized 'rotate'/etc shorthands

>
>
> Do you realise that the proposal requires the same level of understanding?
>

Yes, I realize that fully understanding every part of the proposal and its
interaction with existing transforms requires the same level of
understanding. That's different to being able to use Tab's new properties
though.

It's very fortunate indeed that people don't need to fully understand every
part of the box model in order to effectively use CSS...


>
> Now they'll be confused that
>
> rotate: 45deg;
> translate: 100px;
>
> and
>
> transform: rotate(45deg) translate(100px);
>
> do different things.
>

They might be, in which case they'd happily go back to just using rotate:
and translate:.


> People need to understand the ordering of transforms. I don't see why you
> think that's going away. They used to teach LOGO/Turtle to 5 year olds.
>

I completely disagree. Many people already *don't* understand this
ordering. And for much of what we use transforms for on the web today (e.g.
animation of positioning and scaling), we don't *need* to - or wouldn't, if
we provided more affordances than a single transform list.


> Also, I believe it is a pretty limited view to think that people always
> want to translate before rotation. Sometimes you pick your heading and
> travel in a straight line (means you don't have to do trigonometry to place
> yourself on the circumference of a circle pointing outwards). Other times
> you want to move in a straight line and then orient yourself in space.
>

That's a straw man. We want to keep the transform list for precisely these
cases.

Cheers,
    -Shane