W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [CSS Transforms] syntax of transform-origin vs. background-position

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:08:58 -0700
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <7ECD68DA-2B49-4D84-BFFF-37CD3CC7D71A@apple.com>

Hi Bert,

On Sep 6, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Bert Bos wrote:

> L. David Baron wrote:
>> Right now the syntax of the transform-origin property
> Didn't we decide last year that there wouldn't be a 'transform- 
> origin' property, but that instead 'transform' would allow a  
> sequence of transformations?
> An origin doesn't apply to normal ('static') elements anyway, and  
> for absolutely positioned ones it's enough to add a translation.
> That is at least the version of the proposal that I copied into the  
> Box module.

It is often desirable to rotate and scale an element with the center  
or some other internal point rather than the top left as the anchor.  
To achieve this without transform-origin, you have to translate,  
rotate / scale, and translate back. In that sense, transform-origin is  
only syntactic sugar, but in the course of developing a lot of CSS  
Transforms based content, we have found it makes a huge difference for  
ease of authoring. In particular, making the default transform origin  
be the center of the element makes a huge difference.

I strongly feel that we should retain transform-origin. Strictly  
speaking it does not add new capability but it makes a huge difference  
to ease of authoring.

Received on Saturday, 6 September 2008 20:09:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:39 UTC