W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2013

Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:23:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDHWufwUGsWgMA6sfYYR-iAoUsDjpWGqVHeDOE9+qP_jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Who said anything about DOMRect inheriting from DOMQuad? It shouldn't,
>> > IMHO.
>> > Constructing a DOMQuad from a DOMRect is good enough.
>>
>> I think I did - anything that can take a DOMQuad should be able to
>> take a DOMRect as well, and user-level code should be able to interact
>> with multiple Quads/Rects in a consistent way (that is, as Quads).  We
>> could maybe do this latter by just letting the DOMQuad constructor
>> take a DOMRect (and vice versa, to obtain the aligned bounding rect?).
>
>
> I feel like things are spinning out of control here. Should we make DOMPoint
> inherit from DOMRect since a point is just a degenerate rectangle?
>
> APIs that take quads (of which we have zero right now) can take DOMRects as
> well via overloading or union types. That, plus a DOMQuad constructor that
> takes a DOMRect, and DOMQuad.bounds, should be enough to make things
> arbitrarily convenient.

Sure, I'm fine with that.  (And DOMQuad.bounds is a readonly DOMRect, right?)

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 02:24:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:34 UTC