W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Where should editorial resources on transforms go?

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:09:47 -0800
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAFE624C.24D22%vhardy@adobe.com>
From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org<mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org>>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:20:56 -0800
To: "public-fx@w3.org<mailto:public-fx@w3.org>" <public-fx@w3.org<mailto:public-fx@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Where should editorial resources on transforms go?

On Thursday 2011-12-01 13:08 -0800, Simon Fraser wrote:
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:27 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/
>    a spec that I thought was going to be a merger of the above two,
>    but looks like it has only 2-D
This is Vincent's combined spec, and I think should be the
ultimate, all-singing all-dancing 2D/3D/SVG transforms spec.

What's going to be in this other than what's in 3-D transforms?
More importantly, will that slow down getting to CR, and will it
slow down entering PR?  Given the number of implementations we have
of what's in 2-D and 3-D transforms, I think we should prioritize
getting those specs to CR and to REC rather than adding additional
material.

Hi Dave,

The agreement for the consolidated spec is to have:

- 2D
- 3D
- CSS & SVG transforms merged

Kind regards,
Vincent.
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 19:10:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 December 2011 19:10:30 GMT