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

Re: Where should editorial resources on transforms go?

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:22:07 -0800
To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20111202192207.GA18070@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Friday 2011-12-02 11:09 -0800, Vincent Hardy wrote:
> 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

That doesn't answer any of my questions.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 19:22:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 December 2011 19:22:36 GMT