- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:49:56 -0700
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
2010/10/1 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>: > c) Does an animated transformation (or animation of the content of > a property transformed element) have any influence on the > transform-origin 50% 50% - could be very funny and frustrating for > authors to get wild moves of the initial value due to changes of the > bounding box ;o) > What happens, if the element (sometimes) has not boundingBox, > for example a rotating line or another object, scaled one dimension > to zero? > To say that the intial value becomes 0 is not necessarily useful for > one dimensional objects, for them there is a need now to define > a boundingBox for transform-origin's initial value. A line has a bounding box, even if one dimension of the box is 0, and percentages are well defined and predictable even when the dimension they're referring to is 0. > d) Some transformation functions (section 'Transformation Functions') > have values like <angle> or <translation-value>. > Does it imply additional unit identifiers in SVG or in CSS? > For example for CSS angle is currently (CSS2.0 or CSS3 draft, > not available at all in the referenced CSS2.1) only available > for aural style sheets and requires a unit - I assume that the transform > property will be applicable not just for aural style sheets in the future > and hopefully the angles will not be normalised if applied to rotations, > as currently required in CSS. In CSS3 the <angle> value is defined by CSS3 Values & Units. It definitely isn't just an aural-specific unit. The definition of <angle> will indeed be changed to not automatically normalize, based on previous discussion in the CSS group. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 14:50:57 UTC