- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:23:15 +0100
- To: public-fx@w3.org, /#!/JoePea <trusktr@gmail.com>
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:54:55 +0100, /#!/JoePea <trusktr@gmail.com> wrote: > In some contexts, the "DOM" in DOMMatrix feels out of place, for example > in > WebGL. Why not call it something like TransformationMatrix, > GraphicalMatrix, Matrix3D, or something more generic like that so the > name > is agnostic of where you are using the class. I'm not manipulating DOM > inside of a WebGL context. > > I made discussion about this on Discourse: > http://discourse.wicg.io/t/the-name-of-dommatrix-is-out-of-place/1169 A few points: * I think the name should be consistent between the various interfaces in the Geometry spec. * We can't use no prefix at all because Web content already uses "Point", "Matrix", etc. * "DOM" is typically understood to include everything that is defined in terms of WebIDL these days, not just the objects that are descendants of window.document. * "DOMString" is a name that is used for all strings in the Web platform, and this hasn't been a problem in practice (although that name is not visible to JS). * The common interactions with DOMMatrix will not involve touching the name itself, but more use methods called e.g. "transformMatrix" and so on. * These names have been bikeshedded in the past, where we concluded that "DOM" prefix was least bad (it's short, globally applicable). All in all, I agree that it's not ideal (I would have preferred no prefix if the Web hadn't claimed the names), but I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to change the name of DOMMatrix at this point. In particular, I disagree that the name is inappropriate for 2d canvas or WebGL. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2015 10:23:51 UTC