- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:43:18 -0700
- To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: > >> >> On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:50 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: >> >>> All are shorter, easier to spell, and will not be confused with >>> 'transform'. >> >> If I were going to start changing 'trans***" words, I'd start with >> 'transform', which is math-speak for "move". For avoiding >> confusion, I support changing "animation-duration" to "animation- >> period". > > "transform" is much more than "move". It encompasses translation, > scale, rotate, skew, perspective, combinations of those and even a > few interesting transformations that can't be represented by those > primitives. As for "transform" being too close to "translation", I > don't share your confusion and I think it would be a mistake to > change the name to something less descriptive because they look a > bit close to you. Just look at them for a while, you'll get used to > it :-) Sorry. I meant to say 'translate', not 'transform'. This probably proves a point of some kind. I agree about not going with less descriptive names. But I don't think "move" is less descriptive than "translate", just less geeky.
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 19:44:11 UTC