On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 2014-06-04 20:28 GMT-04:00 Cameron McCormack <c...@mcc.id.au>: > > On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote: >> >>> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the >>> design principles? >>> >>> I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to >>> radians, like the canvas rotate, and unlike SVGMatrix version that >>> takes degrees... >>> >> >> By the way, in the SVG Working Group we have been discussing (but haven't >> decided yet) whether to perform a wholesale overhaul of the SVG DOM. >> >> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/improving-svg-dom/ >> >> If we go through with that, then we could drop SVGMatrix and use >> DOMMatrix (which wouldn't then need to be compatible with SVGMatrix) for >> all the SVG DOM methods we wanted to retain that deal with matrices. I'm >> hoping we'll resolve whether to go ahead with this at our next meeting, in >> August. >> > > Thanks, that's very interesting input in this thread, as the entire > conversation here has been based on the axiom that we have to keep > compatibility with SVGMatrix... > As Dirk says, we can't throw SVGMatrix away. The rewrite of SVG is just a proposal from Cameron at the moment. Nobody has signed off on its implementation and we don't know if other browsers will buy into implementing a new interface while maintaining the old one. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
