On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:21 AM fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 05/17/2016 08:11 PM, Shane Stephens wrote: > > > >> Wait, really? That seems very confusing to me. I would have > >> thought that the motion-* and rotate-* were all independent > >> and 'translate' operated on top of that result. > > > > You need to specify an order that everything gets assembled into a > transformation matrix. > > > > Currently we have: > > > > apply motion (= motion translation, motion rotation) > > apply translate > > apply rotate > > apply scale > > apply transform > > > > The translate, rotate, scale ordering is important so that > > those three properties appear to operate independently of each > > other. We could move the motion rotation to be at the same > > place as rotate, but it seems weird to split the motion > > components like that. > > > >> You're saying that 'rotate' affects the coordinate system of > 'translate'? > > > >No, motion rotation does. > > This seems very counter-intuitive to me. I would not expect > the coordinate system of translate/rotate/scale/transform > to be affected by motion at all. The goal is for these all > to behave as if they were independent right? But with this > ordering they're not. > I'm not sure that is a goal. Would you expect motion rotation to affect transforms? Or transforms to affect motion? You have to pick one. I think translate/scale/etc. should act the same as the transform property, and we can't split that up to insert motion components. Actually, based on your reactions here I'm leaning towards us adding a full motion transform function. There isn't a perfect ordering of transform and motion components where everything always works as expected but at least that way more advanced users can select an order. > > What if you did > > apply translate > apply motion > apply rotate > apply scale > apply transform > > ? > This would keep translate components in the global coordinate system but then translate: 100px; and transform: translate(100px); would sometimes act differently to each other, which is weird. > > p.s. Please either use plaintext email on www-style, or > successfully harass the Gmail team to fix b/19483003 ? > Ah, sorry :( I think that whatever messed up happened because I manually quoted an email to merge two replies. I won't do that again. Unfortunately inbox has no plain text option yet. Cheers, -Shane > > ~fantasai >Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 21:52:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:59 UTC