- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:51:34 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Simon Fraser" <smfr@me.com>, "Andrew Dupont" <w3@andrewdupont.net>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:57:52 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > 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. If the DOMRect attributes are mutable, we can end up with negative width/height anyway. Unless we add more magic to the attributes, but that seems quite confusing. If the author specifies a negative width/height in the constructor, why should we flip it? Isn't it expected to get what you ask for? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 12:52:07 UTC