At 11:28 AM -0700 7/10/06, Micky Hulse wrote: >tedd wrote: >>Not as I see it. The first definition in the dictionary is seldom the only >>"correct" definition. > >Good point... > >Not to be contrary, but: > >What about when you are speaking in terms of computers, and specifically >images? Seems like if the subject is "images on the computer", "rotation" >falls more closely to "rotating on an axis" and not "changing of images".
In other words, "in context" -- which is based upon your own experience and perspective of the topic. Nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that others have different equally founded perspectives and opinions, even when talking about the same topic. For example, when someone is talking to me about computers, the web, and images, then I think about images being placed somewhere on a web page. If someone mentions rotation, I think of banners, slide-shows, rollovers, and other such image manipulations. I don't think of cw or ccw rotations per angle. On my web site, in the top left corner you will see a tree. The tree image changes as per my local seasons (summer, fall, winter, spring, which incidentally was the name of the Indian Princes in the Howdy Doody Show, but that dates me). I wrote code to rotate the images as per the season, thus my perspective of image rotation. My diction of the term "rotation" in this sense is perfectly proper. However, if someone mentions transformations, then I immediately think of matrices and image rotation. Different keywords illicit different perspectives. That's what makes all of this interesting. >Now, in terms of a slide-show, rotation makes some sense, but IMHO I think >word is improperly used. As the old lady said, as she kissed the cow "To each their own." :-) tedd -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
