- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:07:01 -0800
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
- Cc: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:07:55 UTC
No. The 3D transforms spec doesn't explain this very well yet (and WebKit's implementation doesn't yet do what I want), but the idea is that 3D transforms by default are just drawing effects, like 2D. You only start to run into interpenetration issues if you use transform-style: preserve-3d. Simon On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > Very cool! > However, won’t this fall apart when there are other elements on the page and in the same location? > > Rik > > From: Simon Fraser [mailto:smfr@me.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:06 PM > To: Rik Cabanier > Cc: Chris Marrin; www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [css3-transform] definition of skewing > > On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > I’ve attached an example. > It simply rotates a symbol 360 degrees around one of the axis. > > Let me know if the attachment doesn’t make it and I’ll post it online. > > > Here's the CSS 3D transforms equivalent: > <http://smfr.org/misc/spinny.html> > > View this in Safari 5 on Mac or Windows for actual 3D. In Chrome, it will fall back to flattened-3D, which, ironically, looks closer to your sample. > > Using actual 3D transforms to express a flip like this also looks better: it doesn't suffer the Necker cube effect. > > Note that I didn't have to muck with z-order or add any extra elements. > > Simon >
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:07:55 UTC