Re: Where should editorial resources on transforms go?

On Friday 2011-12-02 11:27 -0800, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> None of the implementations are compatible. They all have different sorting
> and different quad or missing quad subdivision. So if nothing else that
> stuff needs to be added (IMO) because right now devs can't count on simple
> things actually working the same across implementations.

How hard is it to specify and test the behavior here?

Does it make sense to try to progress 2-D and 3-D transforms
separately, and get 2-D to CR quickly, given that these issues are
all in 3-D?

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 19:36:22 UTC