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

Re: Where should editorial resources on transforms go?

From: Gregg Tavares (wrk) <gman@google.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:27:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKZ+BNp58OdwihR3i1z_TQN_VPqqO_QTxDcK0kwojANYwNJc3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: public-fx@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

None of the implementations are compatible. They all have different sorting
and different quad or missing quad subdivision. So if nothing else that
stuff needs to be added (IMO) because right now devs can't count on simple
things actually working the same across implementations.


>
> -David
>
> --
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 19:28:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 December 2011 19:28:22 GMT