- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:38:02 -0800
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 05:38:38 UTC
On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > All, > > It seems that the definition of skew in the CSS transform is a little odd. > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/coords.html#SkewXDefined contains the definition of skewx and skewy. As you can see, the calculation is using ‘tan(a)’. > This means that is you have a skew from 45 to 135 degrees, the animated content will stretch as well as skew. > It seems that this is not really the desired behavior… > > If it is, I would like to propose that we extend the ‘rotate’ transform to take an additional parameter. > Ie rotate(45deg, 55deg) would rotate the x-axies by 45 degrees and the y-axis by 55. > I think that is a more natural use of skew. We used to have skew(x, y), but see this message and followups on why that was removed: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0287.html> I object to re-using rotate() to do this kind of skewing. It's really a different operation to rotation. skew(angle) is well-defined by SVG <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/coords.html#EstablishingANewUserSpace> and we follow that definition for CSS. Simon
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 05:38:38 UTC