Overflow is easy enough to deal with, text-overflow requires more work because it actually requires you have a model that matches the W3C specification understanding of generating boxes, instead of matching elements 1:1 which is what most naive implementations do. The same can be said about the white-space property.
Both are easy to implement; in one version, you parse then push the exact order of the parsed statements to matrix transformations. In level 2, you coerce them into the standardized order.
That being said, if you wanted to do anything based off of developer-specified transforms, you have to use level 1's style of applying the transformations. I would expect that GSAP and other such libraries rely on this behavior. Anyone familiar with shader-based transform code will be thinking in this manner anyway.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to use the level 2 manner of specifying transforms if you know what you're doing, because presumably, you immediately lose the ability to push additional transforms to the transform stack.
Both are easy to implement; in one version, you parse then push the exact order of the parsed statements to matrix transformations. In level 2, you coerce them into the standardized order.
That being said, if you wanted to do anything based off of developer-specified transforms, you have to use level 1's style of applying the transformations. I would expect that GSAP and other such libraries rely on this behavior. Anyone familiar with shader-based transform code will be thinking in this manner anyway.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to use the level 2 manner of specifying transforms if you know what you're doing, because presumably, you immediately lose the ability to push additional transforms to the transform stack.