On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I agree. The vast majority of people are just interested in the 2d > transform. > > At the moment yes. And for Pointer events you are probably not interested > in a 3D point as well. I think we all agree in that. When it comes to the > interface description, I don't see a reason to create two different > interfaces. Better to make z=0 and w=1. > One reason is that it's significantly easier to specify and implement the 2d case. As you know, the specification is unclear exactly how perspective and transform-style are implemented. The 3D version of this API will need to know all the transformations so it can be implemented correctly. > > > > > Another issue with 3d is how transform-style [1] is treated. > > for intstance: > > <div id="a"> > > <div style="transform: rotate3d(...); transform-style: preserve-3d"> > > <div id="b" style="transform: rotate3d(...); transform-style: flat"> > > > > > > Does it make sense to transform point between a and b? > > For NodeToNode transformation it probably does not make sense and an > DOMException should be raised. For node to page, I think, WebKit still > returns a 2D point at the moment. > > Greetings, > Dirk > > > 1: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transforms/#transform-style-property > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like it would be best to keep 2D points and > 3D points as separate interfaces. We don't want Web authors to wonder what > "z" and "w" mean for the result of convertPointFromNode. > > > > > > Rob > > -- > > Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur > Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl > bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat > lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir > — whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb > tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28] > > > >Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 18:44:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:44 UTC