W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

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

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:22:48 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB130-DS7859BFDE522679E4D7565A50B0@phx.gbl>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
> * Turn 'transform' into a shorthand for the longhand properties
> 'transform-list' (taking the current syntax), 'rotate', 'translate',
> 'skew', etc (one for each transform function). [...]
> * The specialized properties apply in some arbitrary predefined order.
> The matrix interpolation decomposes them in the order
> translate/rotate/scale/skew, so we'd do the same, I guess.
> 'transform-list' would apply last.
> This proposal not only addresses a common authoring mistake (read as:
> usability hazard), but it also lets off some of the pressure for
> better handling of list-valued properties, as it would let authors
> independently cascade 'rotate' against 'translate', etc.  It doesn't
> do everything, and we'll need to handle indexed longhands eventually,
> but at least we can delay longer while addressing one of the most
> persistent sources of complaints on this front.
> Thoughts?

FWIW, as a long-time proponent of a better handling for list-value 
properties [1] [2], I admit I was initially scratching my head over a custom 
solution which would work for "transform" only. After all, this won't solve 
the problem entirely, and will stay as a legacy once we will. An exemple of 
issue this proposal won't solve: You will now be able to animate your 
rotation and you translation independtly... if they happen in one specific 
order only; that means we move from a consistent "Does not work" to an 
inconsitent "May work".

That being said, Trying to reach perfection is the worst friend of Trying to 
get things better so, after consideration, I support this proposal; mainly 
because I think we can all agree that in a vast majority of cases, it's just 
easier to write "translate: 100px 100px" than "transform: translate(100px, 
100px)". CSS allows for multiple properties to work in cooperation, and 
using this feature in the case of "transform" is probably a good idea which 
comes with a few collateral benefits like better animation support. All put 
together, it looks good to me.

Best regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/1061.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Apr/0711.html 
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 10:22:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:44 UTC