- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:47:15 +0100
- To: "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:36:17 +0100, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 24, 2015, at 10:27 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> >> Most interfaces in the Geometry spec have a dictionary type so you can >> use a direct JS object as an argument instead of requiring the object >> to implement the relevant interface. DOMMatrix doesn't have a >> dictionary though. It seems to me that it should. >> >> Since DOMMatrix has both a-f and m11-m44 attributes, the dictionary >> will have to support members for all those as well and accept objects >> where all are set. >> >> It probably makes sense to have a dictionary member for is2D, to >> preserve it being false even though the members indicate a 2d matrix. >> The constructor could throw TypeError if it was set to true but the >> other members indicate a 3d matrix. >> >> I don't see any reason to have a dictionary member for isIdentity. >> >> The a-f members and the corresponding mXX members can't have default >> values in the IDL, but can be defaulted in prose in the algorithm. If >> e.g. a and m11 are set to different values we could throw TypeError. >> >> dictionary DOMMatrixInit { >> unrestricted double a; // 1 >> unrestricted double b; // 0 >> unrestricted double c; // 0 >> unrestricted double d; // 1 >> unrestricted double e; // 0 >> unrestricted double f; // 0 >> unrestricted double m11; // 1 >> unrestricted double m12; // 0 >> unrestricted double m13 = 0; >> unrestricted double m14 = 0; >> unrestricted double m21; // 0 >> unrestricted double m22; // 1 >> unrestricted double m23 = 0; >> unrestricted double m24 = 0; >> unrestricted double m31 = 0; >> unrestricted double m32 = 0; >> unrestricted double m33 = 1; >> unrestricted double m34 = 0; >> unrestricted double m41; // 0 >> unrestricted double m42; // 0 >> unrestricted double m43 = 0; >> unrestricted double m44 = 1; >> boolean is2D; >> }; >> >> Does this seem reasonable? > > We didn’t want to add more things than there were requests for > initially. I think this is the only reason why we didn’t add it in the > first place. OK, thanks. The current situation is inconsistent, which seems bad for Web developers. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 08:47:46 UTC