On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: >> On 14/01/2012, at 2:49 AM, Johannes Behr wrote: >>> Before going into more details: Was there a good reason for just a single matrix interface and not a minimalistic but useful set of base types (e.g. Vec3, Vec4, Matrix4x4 or even Quaternion) which would be really helpful for various math related operations (e.g composition/decomposition)? We (especially Timm) thought about something similar for the dec3d group: http://www.w3.org/community/declarative3d/wiki/Base_Types >> >> I considered this. My main concern is fear of polluting the global JS namespace with generic classes that might be better developed by the official ECMAScript committee. Adding interfaces to the DOM when they are clearly related to the Web and Web documents is ok, but I think we need to show caution adding 6 interfaces that have broader use. I believe this is why the WebGL group discussed the *Array classes with ECMA. >> >> I would prefer to have the base types as you suggest, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Maybe I'm being overly cautious. > > I'd suggest a good first step would be to ask about this on es-discuss. I think that's fine. But IMHO, linear algebra seems like too specific a use case for a set of classes in the core of JS. ----- ~Chris cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:33:33 UTC