- From: Simon Sarris <simon.sarris@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:34:53 -0400
- To: "Hwang, Dongseong" <dongseong.hwang@intel.com>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Hwang, Dongseong < dongseong.hwang@intel.com> wrote: > Looking over this thread, we make a consensus not to > expose currentTransform attribute. > > Now, all we have to decide is API > > Option 1, > SVGMatrix getTransform(); > void setTransform(SVGMatrix); <-- it overrides void > setTransform(unrestricted double a, unrestricted double b, unrestricted > double c, unrestricted double d, unrestricted double e, unrestricted double > f); > > Option 2, > SVGMatrix getCTM(); > void setCTM(SVGMatrix); > > Option 3, > SVGMatrix getCurrentTransform(); > void setCurrentTransform(SVGMatrix); > > Which is the best? > > Greetings, DS > > I'm heavily in favor of option 1. I think using "Current" in the naming convention is silly. The transform just as much a part of state as lineWidth/etc, but nobody would propose naming lineWidth something like currentLineWidth! There's no way to get a *non-current* transformation matrix (or lineWidth), so I think the distinction is unnecessary. CTM only seems like a good idea if we're worried that the name is too long, but since "Current" is redundant/extraneous, I don't think an initialism is worth the added layer of confusion. Simon
Received on Monday, 24 March 2014 15:56:12 UTC