W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Specification deliverables for FX Task Force work on 2D/3D Transforms

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:36:04 +1100
Cc: public-fx@w3.org
Message-Id: <8010E8A6-7A9A-48B3-9052-BBF2068C3436@apple.com>
To: anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au

On 25/02/2010, at 2:26 PM, Anthony Grasso wrote:

> Hi WGs,
> 
> Before any specification collaboration on Transforms can be fully underway the deliverables for the Task Force must be defined.
> 
> Given that the specifications are still under development, there are a number of options here.
> 
> - A combined effort, where both working groups work on a single specification for each technology (i.e. a single specification for 2D Transforms and a single specification for 3D Transforms).
> 
> - A split effort, where both working groups have their respective specifications that overlap or share common areas in terms of behaviour and wording for each technology (i.e. similar to the current situation).
> 
> - Combined and split efforts, where both working groups maintain their respective specifications and also work on a combined specification.

Numbering your options 1, 2 and 3.

Option 1 seems like the best approach, although I'd be heavily biased to start with CSS 2D and 3D transforms, of course. Especially since there are a number of shipping implementations.

Option 2 would likely end up with two non-interoperable specifications with one being more popular than the other (possibly without regard to quality). Years will go by until someone finally decides to attempt a bastardised merge, which will be more complicated than each specification, and will take more years to actually write and get acceptance. Then we'll be stuck in the situation of having to do different things with different sub-trees of the document, in different situations, with different results. Good times!

Option 3 seems crazy. It's hard enough finding time to develop one specification, let alone one and a half, or even two.

> 
> While deciding on what the deliverables should be, we should take into account that CSS is applicable to SVG and HTML and that SVG may also be applicable HTML in the future in certain cases. Either the first or second option might be the way to go. That said, I have no strong opinion as long as we can justify the option we decide to take.

FWIW, we want to implement CSS Transforms on SVG content in WebKit.

Dean


> 
> We should discuss this at the next XF Task Force telephone conference.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 18:36:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 February 2010 18:36:39 GMT