Re: [css3-2d-transforms] inconsistency between 2d-transforms & css3-background

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Simon Fraser <> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 6:15 am, Oli Studholme wrote:
>> I just noticed that individual border-radius properties e.g.
>> border-top-right-radius lists vertical then horizontal axes, whereas
>> transform-origin values are horizontal then vertical axes, e.g
>> transform-origin: 100% 0; is equivalent to transform-origin: right
>> top;. Based on margin/border/padding (TRBL) I would have expected
>> vertical then horizontal, and this is also the way I’d write them e.g.
>> “The search box is often in the top right of the page”, rather than
>> “right top”.
>> It’d be nice to standardise this kind of thing, as writing CSS like:
>>    .top-right {border-top-right-radius: 0; transform-origin: right top;}
>> is somewhat odd ;)
> transform-origin behaves like background-position:
> <>
> which, like <>,
> takes the horizontal length first. This seems more natural to me, since
> the horizontal offset is usually specified before the vertical offset in math.
> If you use at least one keyword, they can be in any order.
> Border-width, margins and padding use the "clockwise from top" shorthand,
> so reduce to vertical offset first. I think it's probably too late to change these
> properties to try to attain consistency.

It seems like this just matches the most common way people talk about
the two different things.  When giving a coordinate or length pair,
it's traditional to give the horizontal one first.  When naming a
corner, it's traditional to say "top" or "bottom" first.

These aren't consistent with each other, but they're consistent with
English and common usage.


Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 00:24:49 UTC