Re: [CSSOM] Revisiting transforms and getBoundingClientRect()

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> What's the use case for this constructor?
>> >
>> > Which one? I guess I don'thave a use-case for these right now. Let's
>> drop
>> > them and we can add them later if they turn out to be useful.
>>
>> I prefer going the other way - having constructable interfaces unless
>> there's a reason not to do so.
>>
>
> Actually yes, for writing tests for convertRectFromNode and
> convertQuadFromNode I need constructors that let me construct arbitrary
> DOMRects and DOMQuads. Is that a valid use-case? I think so :-).
>
> For DOMRect I suggest:
> [Constructor(double left, double top, double width, double height)]
> For DOMQuad:
> [Constructor(DOMRect rect),
>  Constructor(DOMPoint p1, DOMPoint p2, DOMPoint p3, DOMPoint p4)]
>
> One question about the DOMRect constructor: Should we allow negative
> width/height? I think not. (And APIs should never create DOMRects with
> negative width/height.)
>

Why should we not allow a negative height?


>
> For DOMQuad, should we allow self-intersecting quads? I can't see a reason
> not to.
>
> Rob
> --
> Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
> le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
> stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
> 'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
> waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
> *
>