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: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 06:39:03 +0000
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA8A549A-E337-415B-90F8-229113DBA6EE@adobe.com>

On Jul 13, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:16 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I would note that SVG rotations follow this exact pattern i.e. you specify the angle and an optional rotation origin. This allows each rotate to define its own origin, something the current CSS model does not support.
> Well, it does[1] it is just not implemented yet.

That's cool, but the issue I'm raising is why some properties (or functions) need separate 2D and 3D versions. Or, alternatively, why we'd define it that way if we started from scratch. We're trying to improve API usability and I'm unclear on how this split makes transforms more usable. Either it has value and it should be reflected by the new set of properties. Or it isn't necessary and we shouldn't just copy it, imo.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 06:39:38 UTC

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