- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:33:07 +0100
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Jinho Bang" <jinho.bang@samsung.com>, "Philip Rogers" <pdr@chromium.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "Ian Kilpatrick" <ikilpatrick@google.com>
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:48:02 +0100, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> I thought this had been discussed in the past, but I can't find anything >> now. Only >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014JanMar/0012.html >> which >> isn't asking for non-liveness. >> >> The only live object is DOMQuad#bounds, I believe. >> >> https://drafts.fxtf.org/geometry/#associated-bounding-rectangle >> >> What are the pros and cons for live vs non-live for this object? >> > > If it's not live, would you have an attribute that returns a new object > every time, or a method that returns a new object every time, or an > attribute (or method) that returns a new object every time the DOMQuad > changes, or what? I don't know. Maybe we could remove it and add a .fromQuad() static method on DOMRect/DOMRectReadOnly, that gives the bounding rectangle (new object every time)? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 22:33:40 UTC