W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Comments on rotationAngle

From: Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:43:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4DA48F56.2080401@mozilla.com>
To: Cathy.Chan@nokia.com
CC: public-webevents@w3.org
On 04/06/2011 10:42 AM, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> On 04/04/2011 11:48 AM, Cathy.Chan@nokia.com wrote:
>> Furthermore I'm not entirely convinced that it is necessary to mandate
>> rotationAngle=0 when the touch area is a circle. Let's say I'm
>> emulating a touch area which is a slanted ellipse, and radiusX shrinks
>> from 40 to 10 while radiusY is constant at 20. It would be awkward to
>> have to change rotationAngle from whatever value it was to 0 the
>> moment that radiusX hits 20, and switch it back to the original value
>> right after.
>> I'd say rotationAngle *should* be 0 if the touch area is a circle, but
>> other values should be acceptable as well. (After all the attribute
>> doesn't actually have any effect when the area is a circle.)
> I'm open to this argument. The spec already requires some discontinuous
> jumps (when rotationAngle moves past 90 or 0), but these are not as
> "awkward" as the case you describe here. Meanwhile, the benefit
> (guaranteeing a single correct value of rotationAngle) is not that great.
> If we decide that we don't need to guarantee a unique value for
> rotationAngle, then I propose removing the rotationAngle=0 requirement
> for circular areas completely (rather than downgrading it to SHOULD).

I made this change and added some explanatory text, as discussed in 
today's conference call:


(As an experiment, I also wrapped these lines to 80 characters before 
making this change, to make the diff easier to read, as requested by 
timeless.  If anyone wants to discuss the pros and cons of this 
formatting change, let's start a new thread.)
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 17:44:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:33 UTC