W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

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

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:41:44 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CFEB5939.1D90C%stearns@adobe.com>
On 7/15/14, 8:27 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>> On 7/15/14, 6:55 PM, "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>whatever {
>>>  rotate: 10deg;
>>>  transform: translate(5px) rotate(20deg) translate(10px);
>>>  translate: 20px;
>>>}
>>>
>>>Do I override just the first translate? The last? Both of them?
>>>Everything? None of them?
>>
>> When I try to think of a good answer to this question, all I manage to
>> come up with seems very arbitrary. I am cautiously against the proposal
>>so
>> far. The author convenience seems to me to be outweighed by the
>>complexity
>> of getting the ‘legacy’ transform property to work with the proposal.
>
>You override none of them, *because 'transform' is a separate property*.
>
>And as I said, whether or not 'transform' is a shorthand that resets
>the other transforming properties is something we can discuss.  I
>think it's probably fine to not do that, and leave 'transform'
>independent as well.
>
>(That would mean that the rotate isn't overridden either.  You
>independently translate and rotate, then afterwards apply the
>transform. Nice and easy.)

So there are at least two separate proposals.

Your original proposal had transform as a shorthand, and a bit later you
said it was important to have a way to reset all the transforming
properties, reinforcing the notion that the shorthand transform resets
everything. 

Then when Dean brought up the notion of using both transform and rotate
together, your reply assumes that transform does not reset rotate, so
transform is no longer a shorthand and loses the resetting behavior. This
second proposal sounds to me like two separate syntaxes for
transformations, one applied after the other.

Does this match your understanding?

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 05:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:23 UTC