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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:22:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBtkUus=EixS7kqfAjzo-A1mug1c=1wRb+jFNysWe60VQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> 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.

My direct response to Dean was about a transform followed by a
translate.  Regardless of what variant of the proposal we use, the
answer is the same - the translate doens't do anything to the
transform.

The rotate preceding the transform does depend on which variant we
use. In the original one, 'transform' is a shorthand, so it'll reset
the 'rotate' property.  Based on feedback from Dirk and Dean, though,
I'm exploring another proposal, where transform isn't a shorthand.  In
that, the rotate remains.

I don't think "two separate syntaxes" is a very accurate way of
thinking about it.  There are just four transforming properties; three
of which do single, simple transforms, and the fourth which takes a
<transform-list> for more complicated things.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 06:23:39 UTC

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