- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:49:02 +0000
- To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- CC: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
> From: Dean Jackson [mailto:dino@apple.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:45 PM > To: Sylvain Galineau > Cc: Chris Marrin; www-style@w3.org list > Subject: Re: [css3-2d-transforms][css3-3d-transforms] Relationship of > CSSMatrix interface definitions > > > On 09/09/2010, at 7:31 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > >> From: Chris Marrin [mailto:cmarrin@apple.com] > > > > > >>>> That looks much more clear, to me at least. Is it legal to > redefine > >> the > >>>> translate, scale and rotate functions? > >>> > >>> Legal in what sense ? It certainly makes sense to add the optional > z > >> parameter > >>> to the 3D interface and it seems cumbersome to have two versions of > >> each > >>> method. > >> > >> I mean is it valid IDL. If so, then no problem. > > > > Oh, got it. You're right. These are not strictly speaking > [Supplemental] > > methods; they have to replace the existing translate(), scale() and > rotate() > > or you can't tell which one applies when there are only two arguments. > > Yes. The description of the methods explains what to do when there are > optional arguments. Thanks ! > > This also implies both sets of matrix properties are updated by those > methods. > > It's one of those things worth calling out for completeness. > > I'll make sure it explains that these replace the 2d versions, and add > a link. What are 'these' ? The methods or the a,b,c,d,e,f properties ? I assumed the latter would still be there, on top of the 4x4 matrix 'm' properties ?
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:49:42 UTC