Re: Specification deliverables for FX Task Force work on 2D/3D Transforms

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Erik Dahlstrom <> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:51:45 +0100, Doug Schepers <> wrote:
>> Hi, Dean-
>> Dean Jackson wrote (on 2/25/10 1:36 PM):
>>> On 25/02/2010, at 2:26 PM, Anthony Grasso wrote:
> ...
>>>> While deciding on what the deliverables should be, we should take
>>>> into account that CSS is applicable to SVG and HTML and that SVG
>>>> may also be applicable HTML in the future in certain cases. Either
>>>> the first or second option might be the way to go. That said, I
>>>> have no strong opinion as long as we can justify the option we
>>>> decide to take.
>>> FWIW, we want to implement CSS Transforms on SVG content in WebKit.
>> Awesome.
> I'd like to see that implemented in Opera as well.
>> What are the next steps?  Should we take a straw poll to see if everyone
>> is on board with option 1 (single spec with both syntaxes), and then draft
>> it up and put it in CVS?
> A single spec sounds like the best option to me.
> Cheers
> /Erik
> --
> Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
> Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
> Personal blog:

+1 to Option 1, FWIW.

I'll note that, in addition to the implementation elegance of a
unified spec, there is also an education aspect: many users already
find transformations confusing. Different behavior/nomenclature
between SVG and CSS will only add to the problem.

>From working with both it seems that the 2D transform specifications
are already very close to each other in this regard. The only glaring
difference right now is SVGMatrix multiply() vs CSSMatrix
multiply()/multiplyLeft(), which shouldn't be hard to agree upon.

It's great to see this happening.

Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 22:08:28 UTC