That is what I thought. Do you know how to read and write a CSS matrix
? Otherwise I'll write the longer method out, until I know how to write
matrices :-)
Christopher
Barney Carroll <mailto:barney.carr...@gmail.com>
Thursday, November 27, 2014 4:10 AM
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 <mailto:barney.carr...@gmail.com>
+44 7429 177278
barneycarroll.com <http://barneycarroll.com>
Crest Christopher <mailto:crestchristop...@gmail.com>
Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:38 PM
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/
