Re: [css3-transform] definition of skewing

> On Jan 17, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>> I don't see a reason to have such a function. If an author wants to
>> do such transformations, he can use matrix().
> Having no rotate(a, b) means that we can't use a transition or
> animation.
>
> Ie if you have an object that rotates into view you want to
> transition from rotate(0, -90) to rotate(0, 0) There is no way to do
> this operation with the current rotate/skew/translate primitives.
> Doing it through matrix(...) doesn't work because the transition just
> interpolates the matrix values (which btw is pretty useless).
>
>> Again, that's what matrix() is for. A skew(x,y) primitive would
>> always have the issue of ordering between x and y. I think the
>> current primitives are plenty for allowing authors to construct
>> matrices.
> The issue is also with transitions/animations.
>
> Also, why would skew(x, y) have an issue of ordering? The matrix
> would be: | 1        tan(x)   0 | | tan(y) 1          0 | | 0
> 0         1 |
>
> It doesn't seem necessary to have a separate skewx/skewy since there
> is usually no need to concatenate skews...


On 18/01/2011 12:13 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.
>
> Rik


This is not what you were quite seeking (from seeing the attachment) but 
it is possible to hack it in with generated content. Please view the 2nd 
and later examples in Safari.

<http://css-class.com/test/css/3/transforms-generated-content.htm>


The sides of the generated content are not quite parallel since they 
have the same vanishing point as the framework that is transforming.



-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo

Received on Sunday, 23 January 2011 13:31:40 UTC