W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:42:57 +0200
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w4bg1vjyidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:15:30 +0200, Robert O'Callahan  
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> I have moved them to a common interface annotated with  
>> [NoInterfaceObject]
>> and let DOMRect and DOMRectReadOnly implement it.
>>
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/**rev/3c529183812b<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/3c529183812b>
>>
>> This approach is used by the DOM spec in similar situations.
>>
>> In the JS binding, this is equivalent to what the spec had before.
>
>
> Now we have three interfaces where only two are needed. Why shouldn't
> DOMRect extend DOMRectReadOnly directly?

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.html you  
argued that that would be confusing. Did you change your mind, or was it  
only confusing for "immutable"?

Personally I don't mind either way; we could also do readonly<DOMRect> as  
Tab suggested in  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0701.html  
but we'd need to figure out what that would mean.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 07:43:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:02 UTC