W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] Behavior on UAs without 3D support

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:18:40 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57D3AB7C-DDF0-46B3-A904-D6664501D8DC@adobe.com>

On May 1, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> 
> [Boris Zbarsky:]
>> 
>> On 5/1/12 5:25 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>>> 3) 3D transform functions are treated as invalid if a UA just supports
>> 2D. In this case any property settings are rejected if a 3D transform was
>> found. Independent if 2D transforms are included in this list as well.
>> This gives the author the possibility to provide two different transforms.
>> One for UA's with and one for UAs without 3D support:
>> 
>> This seems like the right approach to me for a UA that doesn't want to do
>> 3D.  This is certainly how it would work if they were separate modules and
>> the UA just did not support the 3D module.
>> 
> I agree. It's also consistent with what happens with existing UAs that support
> 2D but not 3D e.g. IE9. I don't think we'd want authors to have to feature-detect
> which kind of feature non-support they're dealing with...
> 
> 
> 
Thanks for the replies.

Please make sure that you add public-fx, since it is a FX spec. Sending the summary to both mailing lists.

Dirk
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:19:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:19:13 GMT