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: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:30:16 +1000
Cc: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <BD578729-7728-49E9-8F63-8952B1596638@apple.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On 17 Jul 2014, at 3:23 pm, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:
>>> As it turns out, you'd actually need to apply these in the order
>>> translate, scale, rotate to get the result you've pointed out as natural.
>>> And it's the fact that even obvious transform wizards like yourself get this
>>> wrong which is motivating me to want us to add this affordance (Francois
>>> made a very similar point).
>> Ah, my bad. I just realized that you have the order correct. Sorry about
>> that :) Substitute my confusion for your own.
> I'm not sure which result he thought was natural

My email didn't say which I thought was natural (FWIW, I think most people... not all... would be trying to get a rotated rect, not a diamond).

> , or which order he
> thought was applying - it was unclear from the email

I was applying the order that Shane said. Let's quote him directly:


> However, there is one ordering for which the local transformations produce matching global transformations:
> translate(500px, 200px) scale(1.2, 1.1) rotate(25deg)

> This ordering is clearly special, and clearly has strong advantages for the purposes of individual rotate, translate and scale properties - the result of setting these properties will always match across a global and a local coordinate system.


At which point I noted this confusion, predicting Tab's mind:

(Of course, I applied the transforms in the order you specify below, not the order in which you described them above. If I'd done them in the order you describe above, I would get a 200x100 rectangle rotated 45 degrees... because order matters :)

> - but the
> "rotated rectangle" result is definitely what comes out of my
> proposal.  The "squished diamond" isn't what you'd get from
> independent properties; it comes from a TSR ordering.

So I think you Google folk need to get together and work out which is the magical ordering you are proposing (or which is the muggle). Tab is saying he expects a rotated rectangle. Shane is saying TSR is the *clearly special* one. The fact that you don't seem to be able to get it straight is a concern.

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 08:30:50 UTC

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