On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > On Dec 1, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> That was just an example. >> My point was that information is lost if you append all the transforms. >> Better to give back the untransformed bounds and tell the user to do the >> math himself. > > That math is way too hard for the average web developer, if you need to take > 3D transforms and perspective on ancestor elements into account. > > The better solution would be to have getBoundingClientQuads(), and a > pointInQuad() helper method. We've had this discussion before. There's a bunch of information and variants of rects and quads that *might* be useful to expose. Someone needs to sit down and spend the time to figure out *what* to expose and how to do it all sanely. I don't think adding things piecemeal will give us a good result in the end. In particular, there are a handful of orthogonal options that specify what information you can get out. I suspect a solution built around those would be necessary. ~TJReceived on Thursday, 1 December 2011 21:54:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC