- From: Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:26:31 -0700
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bw3c at gmail.com> > wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Gregg Tavares<gman at google.com> wrote: > > It's ambiguous because images have a direction. An image that starts at > 10 > > with a width of -5 is not the same as an image that starts at 6 with a > width > > of +5 any more than starting in SF and driving 5 miles south is not the > same > > as starting in Brisbane and driving 5 miles north. > > > > The spec doesn't say which interpretation is correct. > > I think it's extremely clear. The spec gives four points which > determine a rectangle, which are in no particular order. The image is > rectangular, and is mapped into that rectangle. Rectangles have no > orientation, and the operation "paint the source region onto the > destination region" couldn't possibly be interpreted as requiring > reorientation of any kind. If it's so clear, why do you think 2 of the 4 browsers that implemented it apparently got it wrong? Would making the spec more explicit have avoided their mis-intepretation? > > > I think you got misled by the diagram, and now aren't reading the > normative text of the spec carefully enough -- it's *very* specific > (like most of HTML 5). > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090729/398fa17d/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 23:26:31 UTC