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

RE: Comments on rotationAngle

From: <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:00:00 +0000
To: <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>
CC: <public-webevents@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A46437648ECB3D4F852B077AFF9099F50179F4@008-AM1MPN1-017.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Thanks Matt. It looks great.
- Cathy.

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Matt Brubeck [mailto:mbrubeck@mozilla.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:44 PM
To: Chan Cathy (Nokia-CTO/Boston)
Cc: public-webevents@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments on rotationAngle

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:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/rev/be8b19639be5

(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 Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:01:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 April 2011 16:01:38 GMT