W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [CSS-transforms] rotate(<angle>[, <translation-value>, <translation-value>])

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:39:54 -0800
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <583ADF91-3AAE-4B68-9BFA-B2B755A6BB78@adobe.com>

On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:

> Maybe I can find some working that it would be required for CSS Transforms used with SVG, but is optional for other cases. Would this change help?

> Greetings,
> Dirk
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:43 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2012-02-15 12:27 -0800, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>>> I tried to describe the benefits for CSS[2] but more necessary the
>>> requirements for SVG [3]. This is the last blocking issue for
>>> compliance between CSS Transforms and SVG Transforms for
>>> transformation functions. That is the reason why I think it is
>>> necessary to leave it in. Like I wrote before, it doesn't break
>>> existing content. These are just two more optional arguments, and
>>> it is easy to implement. It is already done for the SVG
>>> implementation on all browser anyway. So SVG authors would expect
>>> that it works on CSS as well, beside that if it is not supported
>>> we would break existing SVG content. And for SVG a rotate with
>>> three arguments is used a lot!
>> My main concern here is that adding additional requirements on
>> implementations might add additional barriers to unprefixing.
>> In particular, the working group this morning did not achieve
>> consensus on the idea that we might make any exceptions to the rules
>> on dropping prefixes.  This means that we have to follow the rules
>> stated in http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-css-2010-20110512/#testing

>> (that's the current version of http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#testing ):
>> # To establish and maintain the interoperability of CSS across
>> # implementations, the CSS Working Group requests that
>> # non-experimental CSS renderers submit an implementation report
>> # (and, if necessary, the testcases used for that implementation
>> # report) to the W3C before releasing an unprefixed implementation
>> # of any CSS features. Testcases submitted to W3C are subject to
>> # review and correction by the CSS Working Group. 
>> While this doesn't explicitly say anything about whether the
>> implementation is required to *pass* the tests per that
>> implementation report, I suspect it might be interpreted that way.
>> (It's a new requirement since the last unprefixing has happened.)
>> So from a spec advancement perspective I'd be ok with this change
>> only if either (1) the spec explicitly says that implementations are
>> not required to support the additional 2 arguments in order to
>> unprefix their implementations of the transform property (though
>> they'd still be required to do so to fully conform to the
>> specification) or (2) /TR/CSS/ is clarified in such a way that this
>> isn't an issue.
>> That said, I also find the additional parameters confusing, but I
>> suppose if SVG has them we're probably stuck with them, and I don't
>> plan to object on those grounds since I'm not particularly an expert
>> in the area.  (I'd note, however, that they're not at all analogous
>> to the extra parameters to rotate3d(), which describe what axis to
>> rotate about, not where the center of the rotation is.)
>> -David
>> -- 
>> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
>> 𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:40:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC