- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:43:25 -0700
- To: Simon Sarris <simon.sarris@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>, "Hwang, Dongseong" <dongseong.hwang@intel.com>, WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Simon Sarris <simon.sarris@gmail.com>wrote: > > 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. > +1 There's already a "transform" function that takes an array that works the same way.
Received on Monday, 24 March 2014 16:17:25 UTC