- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:30:56 +0200
- To: "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Rik Cabanier" <cabanier@gmail.com>, "Simon Fraser" <smfr@me.com>, "Andrew Dupont" <w3@andrewdupont.net>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 23:45:36 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 15, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Robert O'Callahan >> <robert@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> > Alright, DOMPoint/DOMRect/DOMQuad works for me until someone else >> objects... >> > >> > My understanding is that there's a consensus to rename >> ClientRect(List) >> to DOMRect(List) and use DOMMatrix/DOMPoint/DOMQuad. Is this recorded >> anywhere? If not, can someone please record it :-). >> >> Yes, we resolved that the CSS WG prefers DOM prefixes for geometric >> APIs. >> [1] >> > > OK, but that doesn't explicitly address renaming ClientRect(List), which > unlike the APIs discussed in that chat log has some (probably miniscule) > compatibility risk. Has 'Client' as prefix been considered? I recall from the meeting that people didn't seem to care much what the prefix is, so long as it's consistent. Since we already have ClientRect... -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 11:31:28 UTC