- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:42:05 +0200
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Brad Kemper wrote: > > "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. It does. We see it all the time, even in the CSS WG meeting where people have been looking at this for a while. I think transitions will be a big hit, they will change the web. We have the power to give it a likable name. The name we give it will aquire the meaning we want. One example: "margin". In traditional typography, it wouldn't be accurate to refer to the "margin between paragraps" -- a margin is traditionally the space that surrounds the content of a page. Still, the term has worked well in CSS, and all elements have margins around them. I don't think people have been confused. There are several good alternatives to 'transition': shift: left 1s; change: left 1s; flux: left 1s; phase: left 1s; E.g., "CSS shifts" is a marketable term. -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 20:42:45 UTC