Re: [cssom-view] Correction and clarification for the coordinate systems of getClientRect/getBoundingClientRect

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
>