18366 2012-07-23 21:58:56 +0000 Don't multiply transform functions before interpolation on non equal transform lists 2012-10-18 21:43:42 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified CSS Transforms unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 dschulze smfr ayg cmarrin dino dschulze eoconnor smfr public-css-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 71334 0 dschulze 2012-07-23 21:58:56 +0000 David Baron asks on www-style[1] if it is possible to interpolate each transform function pair of two transformation lists separately, even if both lists don't have the same transform function primitives in the same order. This is different to the current spec, where transform functions are premultiplied together to one matrix per transform list and these two matrices are interpolated. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0460.html 71416 1 smfr 2012-07-24 22:03:25 +0000 That's not what he's asking. He's interpreted the presence of a "non-primitive" transform (e.g. perspective) as forcing the entire list into one matrix animation. He's suggesting we just do that one non-primitive pair as a matix anim, and keep the rest paired. 71740 2 smfr 2012-08-01 15:52:26 +0000 The spec now says: "The transform functions ‘matrix’, ‘rotate3d’, ‘matrix3d’ and ‘perspective’ get converted into 4x4 matrices first and interpolated as defined in section Interpolation of Matrices afterwards." In WebKit, for rotate3d(), we will blend single-axis functions without creating a matrix and decomposing. I think this makes most sense. I think it would also make sense to allow rotate3d(0, 0, 1, ...) to blend with rotate(), rotate3d(1, 0, 0, ...) with rotateX() etc. 76621 3 dschulze 2012-10-18 21:43:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > The spec now says: > "The transform functions ‘matrix’, ‘rotate3d’, ‘matrix3d’ and ‘perspective’ > get converted into 4x4 matrices first and interpolated as defined in section > Interpolation of Matrices afterwards." > > In WebKit, for rotate3d(), we will blend single-axis functions without > creating a matrix and decomposing. I think this makes most sense. I think it > would also make sense to allow rotate3d(0, 0, 1, ...) to blend with > rotate(), rotate3d(1, 0, 0, ...) with rotateX() etc. This is fixed in the latest update of the specification text and resolved by the CSS WG.