- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:41:46 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Simon Fraser" <smfr@me.com>, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:36:37 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> If we want the members of DOMRect to be mutable but only if it's not >> associated with a DOMQuad's .bounds, that can be specced by having those >> members check for the association and throw on setting in that case. >> > > We can do that. That's how SVG animated value objects work. I'm not a > great > fan of it, since it means DOMRect's attributes can all throw, which is > confusing in the situations where you have a mutable DOMRect. But it's > OK I > guess. > > If we're making DOMRect mutable we have to decide what happens when its > members are modified, since there are options. For example, when "width" > is > modified one of "left" and "right" must also change, and we have to > specify > which one, or else specify that "width" is actually readonly. > > I think the simplest thing to specify is that "right" and "bottom" are > readonly and the other attributes are mutable and mutating them affects > "right"/"bottom". The simplest thing is to keep all readonly. :-) If we're making things mutable for convenience, I think it's reasonable to allow width/height to be set too, and just have them update bottom and right. >> Is it sane to allow modification of a DOMRect that was returned by e.g. >> getBoundingClientRect()? > > > Yes. Yeah, agree. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 21:42:16 UTC