On Thursday 2014-07-17 09:47 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I propose we add the following three properties to the Transforms spec: > > * translate: <length>{1,3} > - specifies a translation in the X, Y, and Z axises, respectively. > Missing values default to 0. > * rotate: <angle> <number>{3}? <'transform-origin'>? > - specifies a rotation along a given axis from a given origin. An > omitted axis defaults to 0,0,1; an omitted origin defaults to > 'transform-origin's initial value. > * scale: <number>{1,3} <'transform-origin'>? > - specifies a scale in the X, Y, and Z axises, respectively, from > a given origin. Missing values default to 1; an omitted origin default > to 'transform-origin's initial value. I'm mostly ok with this. One concern is about the syntax of the <'transform-origin'>? bits at the end of the 'scale' and 'rotate' properties; I wonder how readable they are as written. I think an author seeing a declaration looking like: scale: 0.5 0.3 50px 25px; might find such a declaration confusing. I wonder if the transform-origin would be better separated somehow, e.g., with a function: scale: 0.5 0.3 origin(50px 25px); (I also wonder whether there's any risk of future syntax collisions between the two. There's certainly a risk of having to take a bit of work to figure out which value something belongs to, e.g., with calc().) -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 16:38:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:43 UTC