Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 :( > > Yes. But the alternative is accumulating a bunch of crufty legacy > methods that hinder development of a proper API. We don't need > perfection, but we need something better than throwing use-cases at > the wall and solving them each individually. > > This isn't something that'll take long to do, if someone is willing to > spend the time on it. The past thread on www-style between me and roc > already got a good start on it. > Agreed. Unfortunately, I do not feel personally qualified to answer the bigger question ;) > > ~TJ >Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 07:09:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC