- From: Aaron Gustafson <aaron@easy-designs.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:45:32 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTin+JAwVLbk9i-4gOMQZuXNoChp=QRbPRiEyY=Ci@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote: > On 03/24/2011 03:14 PM, Aaron Gustafson wrote: > >> >> That certainly makes sense and is something I hadn't considered, but I do >> still think we should look for some balance. On one >> hand there's the incredible power inherent in specifically ordering your >> transformations and on the other hand there's a >> desire to easily (and with limited repetition) being able to successfully >> manage ever more complex stacks of transformations. >> > > Going back to your original problem statement: > > > The issue(s): Based on the current model, it is difficult for authors to >> manage compound transforms for transitions as well as in the context of >> the cascade. This issue is exacerbated when it comes to dynamic >> manipulation >> (via script) because most browsers supporting transforms currently only >> expose the current transform state as a matrix, which is not >> human-readable. >> > > I don't have any solutions for managing the cascade, > but for dynamic manipulation, it would probably make > the most sense to introduce better APIs for manipulating > the value of the 'transform' property. > +1. Absolutely! Matrix makes sense if you think like that, but if not, matrices are incredibly confusing. > As for the cascade, we have similar problems with multiple > shadows and backgrounds. Probably they should all be solved > in the same way. > +1 Cheers, Aaron ---- Aaron Gustafson Easy Designs, LLC http://easy-designs.net
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 22:46:25 UTC