Re: Specification deliverables for FX Task Force work on 2D/3D Transforms

On 02/25/2010 10:36 AM, Dean Jackson wrote:
> On 25/02/2010, at 2:26 PM, Anthony Grasso wrote:
>> - A combined effort, where both working groups work on a single specification for each technology ...
>> - A split effort, where both working groups have their respective specifications that overlap ...
> Numbering your options 1, 2 and 3.
> Option 1 seems like the best approach, ...
> Option 2 would likely end up with two non-interoperable specifications with one being more popular
> than the other (possibly without regard to quality). Years will go by until someone finally decides
> to attempt a bastardised merge, which will be more complicated than each specification, and will
> take more years to actually write and get acceptance. Then we'll be stuck in the situation of
> having to do different things with different sub-trees of the document, in different situations,
> with different results. Good times!

Doug Schepers wrote:

> Yes, [Options 2 and 3] are the worst options... and yet, this is what we've been doing for the
> past 10 years.  It feels like waking from a fever dream.

+1 to Option 1

 > SVG, they may not be able to unambiguously say, "We support the 2D
 > Transforms spec", since they only support one of the formats.

But they can unambiguously say "We support CSS 2D Transforms". We can give options
for conformance to "CSS 2D Transforms" and "SVG 2D Transforms" in the Conformance


Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 23:54:30 UTC