W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

Re: [CSSOM] The GeometryUtils interface & DOM Ranges

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:40:10 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLb2_AMRxtc=peUxsN1DhKHhe-QmOjaNTMN54dxtjOpUzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Cc: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com
> wrote:

> DOM Ranges currently support the getBoundingClientRect() and
> getClientRects() methods, but both of them are incredibly buggy overall in
> most browsers (especially when transforms enter into the mix).


Hmm. Can you point me to bugs in Firefox?


> I think it would be great if the people working on the getBoxQuads
> implementation in FireFox could try to return a quad for the cursor
> position (for collasped ranges) or the quads of the associated selection
> overlay (for non-collapsed ranges) and/or report feedback regarding the
> complexity of these tasks. That would make me so happy.
>

I agree Range.getBoxQuads is needed and would be pretty easy to implement.
However, I'd like to get spec text for existing getBoxQuads first :-).

I'm not sure we want Range implements GeometryUtils. It might not be useful
to have Range implement the convert* methods.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Sunday, 6 July 2014 22:40:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:23 UTC