W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: comments on Matrix

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:41:29 -0700
To: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@gmail.com>
CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brandon Jones <bajones@google.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <22469B5A-ADD1-4FD8-B51C-4801868D0573@adobe.com>

On Mar 22, 2013, at 4:45 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW I am mostly indifferent to the following change either way.
> 
> 2013/3/22 Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
> - renamed matrix to cssmatrix
> 
> I saw your question on the other thread, but not knowing much about CSS I don't have an opinion on what difference this renaming makes. My point in asking for it to be renamed to DeprecatedMatrix was to let existing matrix classes get deprecated avoid signing up for another 200 years of support for a new class.

I think we went over all parts multiple times. There is a use for a matrix interface. Fair enough if you won't make use of it and it might well be that this is not enough for WebGL at this point - not every interface is the right solution for everyone and every use case.

As disused multiple times before, the proposal is a harmonization of what we have on the web already with SVGMatrix, WebKitCSSMatrix and MSCSSMatrix, making specifications like CSS, SVG and Canvas more interoperable with each other. Latest API exposes on all these specifications and real world applications demonstrate the need for a simple API like this.

The main concerns in the last discussions (throwing errors, support of unrestricted floating point, decomposed values) were addressed by the last commit from Rik. For sure more tweaks on the definitions are needed. The specification in its current shape is not supposed to be accepted as recommendation at this point. It is ok if it still has some flaws that can be improved.

I am happy to hear and incorporate your feedback on specific parts of the specification but do not think that this discussion here is going somewhere and won't contribute to it any further.

Greetings,
Dirk 

> 
> Benoit
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 14:42:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 22 March 2013 14:42:07 GMT