The sad state of browser matrix transforms

His point on Chrome's problems with scale and zoom is particularly vexing because it gets it right if you use pinch-to-zoom, but not if you use ctrl+scrollwheel to zoom. In other words, Chrome has two completely different page scaling features.

Unfortunately, IE doesn't support `preserve-3d`; you have to keep track of your own stack (and prepend it to all child transforms).

I think saying it&#x27;s a &#x27;sad state&#x27; is a bit dramatic. An &#x27;imperfect state&#x27; would be a better description.<p>I&#x27;ve used the matrix function a lot, and am perfectly happy with how it renders across browsers. I would be happy if it was bug-free and easier to use, but it still gives me a lot more power than if it didn&#x27;t exist.

Kind of offtopic:<p>How should browsers handle transitions of transformations?<p>AFAIK in Firefox if your transformation is a composition of multiple transformations then it does a transition of each part in a way where the transformation parameter linearly changes. Like between <i>scale(2) rotate(0)</i> and <i>scale(4) rotate(90)</i> in the middle of the transformation there is <i>scale(3) rotate(45)</i>. It&#x27;s different if you define the same transformations at the two ends as matrices.<p>It&#x27;s kind if cool tho, since you can create a transition between <i>rotate(0)</i> and <i>rotate(360)</i>, however it&#x27;s not entirely clear what happens if the two ends have different transformation elements.

On my Firefox browser [31.5, Debian], the rotated image worked fine.

Clicking this, I was expecting to read a damning article about the state of recent research in numerical linear algebra. Looks like I can relax.