- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:23:42 -0700
- 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