- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:24:16 -0700
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > Brad Kemper wrote: >> >> >> 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. I agree. > We > have the power to give it a likable name. I like it when the name makes it pretty clear what it does and what it is for, succinctly. . > The name we give it will > aquire the meaning we want. > ... > 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. Considering all the following property names: Transition Translate Tranform Text-transform Character-transform Of all these, I'd say that 'transition' is the best, the one I'd most like to keep. It described exactly what's happening, in a way that 'shift' doesn't, IMO. The one I like the least is 'translate', a word that probably appeals to mathematicians and engineers, and not many others. Everyone else speaking English would just say 'move'. But it and 'transform' are in SVG, so I suppose we may be stuck with them. And if we have 'transform', then 'character-transform' makes logical sense, since the characters are being scaled and "translated" (you know, moved). That only leaves "text-transform", and it is way too late to change that one. So I don't know. Maintain an open mind to alternatives to 'transition', but so far I've haven't heard one I like better.
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 23:24:59 UTC