- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:18:40 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On May 1, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > [Boris Zbarsky:] >> >> On 5/1/12 5:25 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >>> 3) 3D transform functions are treated as invalid if a UA just supports >> 2D. In this case any property settings are rejected if a 3D transform was >> found. Independent if 2D transforms are included in this list as well. >> This gives the author the possibility to provide two different transforms. >> One for UA's with and one for UAs without 3D support: >> >> This seems like the right approach to me for a UA that doesn't want to do >> 3D. This is certainly how it would work if they were separate modules and >> the UA just did not support the 3D module. >> > I agree. It's also consistent with what happens with existing UAs that support > 2D but not 3D e.g. IE9. I don't think we'd want authors to have to feature-detect > which kind of feature non-support they're dealing with... > > > Thanks for the replies. Please make sure that you add public-fx, since it is a FX spec. Sending the summary to both mailing lists. Dirk
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:19:14 UTC