- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:07:01 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:15 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? > > Argh, the commas, they kill me. > > Please please please remove the comma between tx and ty, so rotate() a > two-arg function. Then remove the commas between x, y, and z, so > rotate3d() is a three-arg function. Well, I choose the same syntax rules as for the other transformation functions. Also, I still think it is better to have a general definition like CSS Values [1] has it, instead of having different notations all over the place and confuse authors when they have to set a comma and when not. I wouldn't even care if there should be commas between transformation functions. But I don't want to reopen the discussion on this place :). -Dirk [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#functional-notation
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 23:08:52 UTC