- From: Dirk Schulze via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 17:37:53 +0000
- To: public-fxtf-archive@w3.org
dirkschulze has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts: == [geometry] DOMRect could be clearer about the sign of contained zeroes == Reported by Jeff Walden on https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28919: >Aside from explicitly noting that width/height may be negative, the spec is silent as to the sign of any particular attribute when that >attribute is zero, for get > >Presumably because of the DOMRect constructor lets you create a DOMRect with arbitrary x/y/width/height, you can have -0 for anything. If so, >it seems like it might be best to explicitly note that any field might be -0. > >Additionally, because the language defining a Rect's origin introduces a sharp distinction for negative/non-negative width/height -- "When the >rectangle has a non-negative width dimension, the rectangle’s horizontal origin is the left edge; otherwise, it is the right edge." and >mutatis mutandis for height -- that language could use evaluation in light of -0, too. > >I...somewhat think this all is distinct from the presence of -0, as described by users of DOMRect. I also filed >https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28918 for the getBoundingClientRect()/getClientRects() side of the -0 question. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/272 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2018 17:38:00 UTC