Re: Geometry Interfaces spec is exhibiting common problems

Hello Domenic,

As the Geometry Interfaces spec says, feedback should be sent to
public-fx@w3.org with subject line “[geometry] … message topic …”

I have forwarded your message to that list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014AprJun/0188.html
since the Geometry Interfaces spec is in Last Call.

Editors, please follow up this Last call comment with Domenic, rather
than myself.

Monday, June 30, 2014, 3:51:32 AM, you wrote:

> For those interested, this discussion has continued on public-script-coord:

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2014AprJun/0246.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Domenic Denicola 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 15:23
> To: www-tag@w3.org List
> Subject: Geometry Interfaces spec is exhibiting common problems

> Spec: http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/

> Missing constructors:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26201
> A new fake array type:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26200

> Related discussion on blink-dev:
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/V_bJNtOg0oM

> I'm a bit frustrated that we haven't done a better job
> communicating these common pitfalls to spec writers. I'd like us to
> quickly put together a spec review that calls out these two issues
> in particular, framing them in the context of the larger web
> platform, and submit that formally to the CSSWG.

> I also think that at some point I'll be writing up some sort of
> constructor thesis, to try to really drive home how mind-boggling
> crazy it is that we have objects on the web platform that spring
> into being without ever being constructed.




-- 
Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 14:48:10 UTC