On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > 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)] > > Yeah, these are all good. > > > 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.) > > We should "allow", where that means at least "not throw". I'm > undecided on whether it should clamp to zero, or just construct the > appropriate rectangle (with a top/left different from what you passed > in). Or just go ahead and allow negative width/height directly, with > the obvious mapping to a quad? That would mean that the top/left > properties aren't actually the top left corner of the shape, though. > Yes, that sounds bad. I think it'd be best to have the DOMRect constructor flip things around to ensure that width and height are not negative. 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 * *
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 21:58:19 UTC