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 11:54:44 -0800
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAFE6CA6.24D49%vhardy@adobe.com>
From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org<mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org>>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:23:29 -0800
To: Adobe Systems <vhardy@adobe.com<mailto:vhardy@adobe.com>>
Cc: "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 Friday 2011-12-02 11:22 -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2011-12-02 11:09 -0800, Vincent Hardy wrote:
> From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org<mailto: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><mailto:public-fx@w3.org>" <public-fx@w3.org<mailto: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.

Er, sorry, I suppose it does answer the first (except that I'm not
aware of anything in 2-D that's not also in 3-D).  But the second
one is the important one.

We had that discussion and decided to go for a consolidated spec. Unless there are new arguments for re-opening the discussion, I think we should stick to our decision.

Vincent
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 19:55:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 December 2011 19:55:24 GMT