W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2015

Re: [css-transforms] Scale property

From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:56:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGTfzwScjgx4FV0gC2hTW4_4T+KZvqV6Ky-5n_hDtZsjY47f_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
Do you think it's OK that 'scale: 2' becomes 'scale: 2 2' but not 'scale: 2
2 2'?

Generally we want to avoid promoting to 3D transforms unless required to.

Cheers,
    -Shane

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:50 PM fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 06/17/2015 04:06 AM, Shane Stephens wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > Should 'scale: 2' be equivalent to 'transform: scale(2)' or 'transform:
> scale(2, 1)'?
> >
> > Clearly, 'scale: 2 2' should not expand to 'transform: scale3D(2, 2,
> 2)'. Is it better to be inconsistent between the one
> > value and two value cases of the scale property, or to be inconsistent
> between the scale property and the scale transform
> > function?
>
> scale: 2 should scale in both dimensions.
>
> a) Makes way more sense as a first impression
> b) Matches the way scale() handles having only one argument!
> c) Omitted values in CSS for symmetric properties are usually repeated,
> not defaulted.
>     (I screwed this up for background-size, please don't copy the mistake.
> :)
>
> ~fantasai
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 10:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC