- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:35:49 -0800
- To: "Gregg Tavares (wrk)" <gman@google.com>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
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