W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [css3-2d-transforms] Various spec comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:59:06 -0800
To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u2r9ssbe64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:09:02 -0800, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>  
wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:52:46 +0100, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>> On 24/06/2009, at 11:12 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug wrote:
>> I believe Safari/Minefield are doing what we intended. My suggested  
>> change is to remove "none" from the list of allowed transform  
>> functions, but leave the text in section 2 for now. That would make the  
>> "none rotate(1deg)" property invalid, and match current implementations.
>
> Sounds good (as does the rest).
>
>>> 7) Section 7.2: The functions (should perhaps say "methods" to be  
>>> consistent?) specified are "added to the Window interface", but it  
>>> seems the DOM specs use 'AbstractView' instead of 'Window'. The HTML5  
>>> draft has Window, though.
>>
>> I've changed to "methods". Not sure about AbstractView v Window. Which  
>> do you prefer?
>
> I thought it might be problematic to have to reference HTML5 which is  
> only a draft still. If that's not an issue either one seems fine by me.  
> Maybe Anne has an opinion (especially if this is to be moved to CSSOM).

Maybe they should be on Screen (window.screen) instead? Then again,  
elementFromPoint and caretRangeFromPoint (soon to be renamed to  
caretPositionFromPoint) are on Document (window.document).

If we can avoid it I rather avoid polluting the global object further.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 20:00:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT