- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:10:52 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Tim Volodine <timvolodine@google.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Aug 1, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2014 4:24 AM, "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir@lamouri.fr> wrote: > > > > (bcc: public-geolocation@w3.org) > > > > Hi, > > > > A couple of weeks ago, Tim Volodine offered a solution that would > > significantly improve the developer experience with the > > DeviceOrientaiton API [1]. The solution consists of exposing a > > quaternion in order to represent the rotation instead of euler angles. > > > > It occurred to me that instead of having the Device Orientation > > specification exposing Quaternions to the platform, it might be better > > to include this in the Geometry specification. WDYT? > > > > [1] > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2014Jul/0023.html > > I think exposing quaternions would be pretty cool, but don't have a strong opinion on this. It is definitely an interesting but specific proposal. > > However, if they're going to be exposed by some spec, I do think it's best to bundle it into Geometry. I agree with Tab. I think it makes sense that the specification that makes use of DOMQuaternion (OrientationQuaternion in the original proposal) introduces it first. If it turns out to have a wider scope we can reconsider and add it to the next level of Geometry Interfaces instead. I would like to avoid adding new features to the current level of Geometry Interfaces. What do you think? Greetings, Dirk > > ~TJ >
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 14:11:42 UTC