- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:23:29 -0800
- To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Friday 2011-12-02 11:22 -0800, L. David Baron wrote: > On Friday 2011-12-02 11:09 -0800, Vincent Hardy wrote: > > From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org<mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org>> > > Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:20:56 -0800 > > To: "public-fx@w3.org<mailto:public-fx@w3.org>" <public-fx@w3.org<mailto:public-fx@w3.org>> > > Subject: Re: Where should editorial resources on transforms go? > > > > On Thursday 2011-12-01 13:08 -0800, Simon Fraser wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:27 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/ > > > a spec that I thought was going to be a merger of the above two, > > > but looks like it has only 2-D > > This is Vincent's combined spec, and I think should be the > > ultimate, all-singing all-dancing 2D/3D/SVG transforms spec. > > > > What's going to be in this other than what's in 3-D transforms? > > More importantly, will that slow down getting to CR, and will it > > slow down entering PR? Given the number of implementations we have > > of what's in 2-D and 3-D transforms, I think we should prioritize > > getting those specs to CR and to REC rather than adding additional > > material. > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > The agreement for the consolidated spec is to have: > > > > - 2D > > - 3D > > - CSS & SVG transforms merged > > That doesn't answer any of my questions. Er, sorry, I suppose it does answer the first (except that I'm not aware of anything in 2-D that's not also in 3-D). But the second one is the important one. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 19:24:01 UTC