- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:27:39 -0800
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Christoph, I added the two offset arguments for rotate() yesterday. While for Rotate3d you specify a vector to define the aches around you want to rotate the element in 3d space, rotate() defines an offset to the origin. And you rotate the element around this given point. So it is hard to combine both functions and separating makes more sense then. Note that rotate excepts length and percentage, while rotate3d just excepts numbers (vector). Greetings, -Dirk On Feb 10, 2012, at 3:17 AM, "Christoph Päper" <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote: > Simon Fraser (2012-02-09 09:00): > >> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/#two-d-transform-functions> > > I haven’t cared about the transform (or animation) specs at all. I took a first look at the combined spec right now and I’m wondering: > > Why is it > > rotate(α, tx, ty) or rotate(α) > > but > > rotate3d(x, y, z, α) > > i.e. reversed order of angle and origin – or more generally: why are 3D functions not mere extensions of 2D functions with additional z parameters?
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 15:28:13 UTC