Re: [css-transforms] Making 'transform' match author expectations better with specialized 'rotate'/etc shorthands

> On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:47 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Validating the author's mistake was only one of the reasons behind my
> proposal (the other was allowing some basic "separation" of
> transforms, so you could, say, animate something's position with
> 'translate', while rotating it on hover).  That said, don't write it
> off.  Common authoring mistakes are a sign that *we* made a mistake;
> it means that something does not match a common internal model.
> Sometimes that's fine, and authors just need to learn how it works;
> other times it means we should tweak things to move closer to the
> author's internal model.
> 
> If you read the tail end of that Twitter thread, you see a bunch of
> authors sounding off enthusiastically about this.  This is *very*
> common, and would make a lot of authors very happy, I think.

I agree. We should do this.

Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 18:20:25 UTC