Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Unfortunately, this means that for the forseeable future, doing hit detection and direct manipulation on transformed elements (very, very common on mobile devices) will continue to be complicated, error-prone, and somewhat outside the reach of the average developer :( > > 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. > > ~TJ > >Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 21:59:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC