W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-3d-transforms] Relationship of CSSMatrix interface definitions

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:44:55 +1000
Cc: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E2A334E7-DC18-4B9C-9652-FAC93BA89773@apple.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>

On 09/09/2010, at 7:31 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

>> From: Chris Marrin [mailto:cmarrin@apple.com]
> 
> 
>>>> That looks much more clear, to me at least. Is it legal to redefine
>> the
>>>> translate, scale and rotate functions?
>>> 
>>> Legal in what sense ? It certainly makes sense to add the optional z
>> parameter
>>> to the 3D interface and it seems cumbersome to have two versions of
>> each
>>> method.
>> 
>> I mean is it valid IDL. If so, then no problem.
> 
> Oh, got it. You're right. These are not strictly speaking [Supplemental]
> methods; they have to replace the existing translate(), scale() and rotate()
> or you can't tell which one applies when there are only two arguments.

Yes. The description of the methods explains what to do when there are optional arguments.

> This also implies both sets of matrix properties are updated by those methods.
> It's one of those things worth calling out for completeness.

I'll make sure it explains that these replace the 2d versions, and add a link.

Dean
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:45:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT