Re: [Transforms] specification feedback

Hi everyone,

>> 6. Section 3: I think you should maintain more backward compatibility.
>> † †Can't you maintain *complete* backward compatibility if you:
>> † †(a) Introduce rotate3D() for 3D rotations, and keep rotate() as
>> † † † † it is (for 2D rotations).
>> † †(b) Make the <cz> values optional in rotateX() and rotateZ().
>> † Since the bulk of SVG documents are purely 2D, you shouldn't impose
>> † †a burden on their authors for 3D features that they don't want to
>> † †use. So in addition to backward compatibility you shouldn't force
>> † †authors of 2D documents to do more work (supply more values).
> Right. Once again I agree with this. However, the SVG Working Group decided
> at one point to change the syntax for this. I can't remember why exactly, I
> think the answer lies in the minutes from the Sydney face-to-face this year.
> As a side note, from memory CSS Transforms uses rotate for 2D rotations and
> rotate3D for 3D rotations. I would be in favor of changing this to match the
> CSS specification.

FWIW, I'm also in the opinion that (not just regarding this scope but
in general) 3D-related attributes/interfaces should try to extend the
existing ones, not force people to provide dummy 3D data when only 2D
content is desired. Need to further analyze this on my side in order
to better understand if this can become a pain... ;-)  In this scope
in particular, I'd second Anthony regarding the use of a different API

I'd would appreciate seeing the SVG and CSS Working Groups to try as
much as possible to make the two current specification proposals
compatible in order to avoid the partial overlap to become a burden
for authors/users/tools. I'm sure coordination is already underway but
it doesn't cost anything to ask (a popular expression in Portuguese,
BTW)... :-)


Received on Saturday, 21 November 2009 08:45:10 UTC