15471 2012-01-09 15:27:34 +0000 Should resolved value of transform be "none" in some cases? 2012-03-12 20:37:32 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified CSS Transforms unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 ayg smfr ayg cmarrin dino dschulze eoconnor smfr oldest_to_newest 62414 0 ayg 2012-01-09 15:27:34 +0000 """ The transform property of the style object returned by getComputedStyle contains a DOMString of the form "matrix(a, b, c, d, e, f)" representing the 3x2 matrix that is the result of applying the individual functions listed in the transform property. """ http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/#dom-interfaces Test case 1: data:text/html,<!doctype html> <script>alert(getComputedStyle(document.head).transform)</script> With the property adjusted to msTransform/MozTransform/webkitTransform/OTransform as appropriate, this alerts "none" in all engines (IE9, Firefox 12.0a1, Chrome 17 dev, Opera next 12.00 alpha). Test case 2: data:text/html,<!doctype html> <script> document.head.style.transform = "none"; alert(getComputedStyle(document.head).transform); </script> In IE9, this alerts "matrix(1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0)" per spec. In Firefox 12.0a1, Chrome 17 dev, and Opera Next 12.00 alpha, it alerts "none". Does the spec need to change here, or should browsers change? 62840 1 smfr 2012-01-18 06:08:13 +0000 Looks like IE9 has incorrect behavior on the second test case. getComputedStyle().transform should return 'none' unless the element has a transform applied to it. 62852 2 ayg 2012-01-18 15:19:01 +0000 I'm fine with that, but it's not what the spec currently says. 63108 3 smfr 2012-01-25 18:15:41 +0000 I'm adding text like: <p>The computed value of the transform property is a matrix() or matrix3d() value that describes the matrix that results from concatenating the individual transform functions. If the resulting matrix can be represented as a two-dimensional matrix with no loss of information, then a matrix() value is returned, otherwise a matrix3d() value. For elements with no transform applied, the computed value is 'none'.</p> 65383 4 ayg 2012-03-12 20:37:32 +0000 It looks like this was fixed: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/69a97e82974d