- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:48:00 +0200
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- CC: "TAG" <www-tag@w3.org>, FX <public-fx@w3.org>
Hello Domenic, As the Geometry Interfaces spec says, feedback should be sent to public-fx@w3.org with subject line “[geometry] … message topic …” I have forwarded your message to that list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014AprJun/0188.html since the Geometry Interfaces spec is in Last Call. Editors, please follow up this Last call comment with Domenic, rather than myself. Monday, June 30, 2014, 3:51:32 AM, you wrote: > 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. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 14:48:07 UTC