[fxtf-drafts] Pull Request: Improve links to 2D vs 3D transforms math descriptions.

trusktr has just submitted a new pull request for https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts:

== Improve links to 2D vs 3D transforms math descriptions. ==
The motivation here is that, while I'm implementing a [TypeScript polyfill for geometry-interfaces](https://github.com/trusktr/geometry-interfaces), it could be more clear exactly what math needs to be implemented. For example, some methods that do 3D transforms were linking only to the 2D descriptions in css-transforms-1, so I also added links to 3D math descriptions in css-transforms-2 for clarity as well as for ease of exploration and navigation.

Is this the right way to do it?

A question I have is, why are 2D descriptions separated from 3D descriptions across css-transforms-1 and css-transforms-2? Why doesn't the latest spec (css-transforms-2?) contain all the information so that linking we only need to link to css-transforms-2 and not css-transforms-1?

For now, this is the simplest change to geometry-1, but I feel like it would be better if the latest css-transforms spec had all relevant details, and geometry-* would only link to the latest css-transforms-* spec.

See https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/pull/583


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 27 December 2024 21:56:51 UTC