- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:58:11 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Simon Fraser" <smfr@me.com>, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:23:42 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Robert O'Callahan > <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Robert O'Callahan >>> <robert@ocallahan.org> >>> wrote: >>> > Who said anything about DOMRect inheriting from DOMQuad? It >>> shouldn't, >>> > IMHO. >>> > Constructing a DOMQuad from a DOMRect is good enough. >>> >>> I think I did - anything that can take a DOMQuad should be able to >>> take a DOMRect as well, and user-level code should be able to interact >>> with multiple Quads/Rects in a consistent way (that is, as Quads). We >>> could maybe do this latter by just letting the DOMQuad constructor >>> take a DOMRect (and vice versa, to obtain the aligned bounding rect?). >> >> >> I feel like things are spinning out of control here. Should we make >> DOMPoint >> inherit from DOMRect since a point is just a degenerate rectangle? >> >> APIs that take quads (of which we have zero right now) can take >> DOMRects as >> well via overloading or union types. That, plus a DOMQuad constructor >> that >> takes a DOMRect, and DOMQuad.bounds, should be enough to make things >> arbitrarily convenient. > > Sure, I'm fine with that. (And DOMQuad.bounds is a readonly DOMRect, > right?) OK, I've removed the inheritance. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/1720a4a9f3bd -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:58:45 UTC