- From: Oli Studholme <w3-style@boblet.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:57:14 +0900
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Hey all, Thank you all for your input — it’s helped me understand things a lot more. I have a couple of comments: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Oli Studholme wrote: … >> So could >> matrix(<number>, <number>, <number>, <number>, <number>, <number>) >> be rewritten as >> matrix(<scaleX(sX)>, <skewY(tan(aY))>, <skewX(tan(aX))>, >> <scaleY(sY)>, <translateX(tX)>, <translateY(tY)>) > > No, because you've left rotation out, and a transform can include multiple instances of the same transformation function. eg. transform: scale(10) rotate(5deg) scale(0.1) rotate(-5deg) I figured that rotation was generated by combining skew and scale transformations. Regarding multiple transformations, I was thinking about it as the sum of the transformations. Regardless, I think it would still be worthwhile to provide a slightly less confusing summary to matrix() for the uninitiated, even if just to spell out that a matrix transformation is an algebraic concept. … > It's not just rotations > 360 though. Anytime you're interpolating the matrix simplification of a list of transforms you're risking a different behaviour. hmm, thanks for that — I hadn’t realised this was an issue. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > The simplest solution may be to take that first quoted bit out entirely; > then we don't have to worry about matrix stuff except for matrix() itself, > and that can be defined in terms of the explicit formula above. This would have helped me realise the reason I didn’t understand the definition of matrix() originally is that it contained math ;) peace - oli studholme @boblet
Received on Friday, 18 February 2011 13:58:27 UTC