- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:38:44 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- CC: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "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 Sep 18, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > 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… Well, ClientRect has a specific boundary to an object in the first place, while other geometry terms like Matrix, Point, Quad don't need to have this. It looks strange to me to prefix the latter terms with Client. Greetings, Dirk > > -- > Simon Pieters > Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 11:39:27 UTC