It's exactly the same: it's all computed to a matrix anyway. Even in your pseudo-code example, translateN( value ) is obviously terser than expressing the 16 values necessary to define a 3d matrix. The ultimate decision to include both APIs is down to convenience and expressiveness rather than byte-saving – it's easier for most people to rationalise and express a scale or a translation than it is to mentally model a matrix.
Regards, Barney Carroll barney.carr...@gmail.com +44 7429 177278 barneycarroll.com On 27 November 2014 at 03:38, Crest Christopher <crestchristop...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is a CSS 3D-Matrix Transform equal to defining X,Y,Z translation values ? > I think it would be simpler to do CSS 3D transforms using; > matrix3d(n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n) instead of translate(x),(y),(z) > less code :-) > > Christopher > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
