- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:21:32 +0200
- To: FX <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1886436165.20140630162132@w3.org>
Forwarded message from the TAG public list. From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org> Date: Monday, June 30, 2014, 3:51:32 AM Subject: Geometry Interfaces spec is exhibiting common problems ===8<==============Original message text=============== For those interested, this discussion has continued on public-script-coord: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2014AprJun/0246.html -----Original Message----- From: Domenic Denicola Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 15:23 To: www-tag@w3.org List Subject: Geometry Interfaces spec is exhibiting common problems Spec: http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/ Missing constructors: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26201 A new fake array type: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26200 Related discussion on blink-dev: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/V_bJNtOg0oM I'm a bit frustrated that we haven't done a better job communicating these common pitfalls to spec writers. I'd like us to quickly put together a spec review that calls out these two issues in particular, framing them in the context of the larger web platform, and submit that formally to the CSSWG. I also think that at some point I'll be writing up some sort of constructor thesis, to try to really drive home how mind-boggling crazy it is that we have objects on the web platform that spring into being without ever being constructed. ===8<===========End of original message text=========== -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Attachments
- message/rfc822 attachment: Message01.eml
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 14:21:38 UTC