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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:27:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC2F3vDUCfxK00tR7+8SDtpa17FGX7gcOypuPMsM0299Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/14, 6:55 PM, "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>whatever {
>>  rotate: 10deg;
>>  transform: translate(5px) rotate(20deg) translate(10px);
>>  translate: 20px;
>>Do I override just the first translate? The last? Both of them?
>>Everything? None of them?
> When I try to think of a good answer to this question, all I manage to
> come up with seems very arbitrary. I am cautiously against the proposal so
> far. The author convenience seems to me to be outweighed by the complexity
> of getting the ‘legacy’ transform property to work with the proposal.

You override none of them, *because 'transform' is a separate property*.

And as I said, whether or not 'transform' is a shorthand that resets
the other transforming properties is something we can discuss.  I
think it's probably fine to not do that, and leave 'transform'
independent as well.

(That would mean that the rotate isn't overridden either.  You
independently translate and rotate, then afterwards apply the
transform. Nice and easy.)

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 03:27:47 UTC

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