Improve links to 2D vs 3D transforms math descriptions. #583
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
trusktr
commented
Dec 27, 2024
| 3. If <var>parsedValue</var> is ''transform/none'', set <var>parsedValue</var> to a | ||
| <<transform-list>> containing a single identity matrix. | ||
| 4. Let <var>2dTransform</var> track the 2D/3D dimension status of <var>parsedValue</var>. | ||
| 4. Let <var>2dTransform</var> track whether <var>parsedValue</var> is a 2D or 3D transform. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is one unrelated change here: the phrase "the 2D/3D dimension status" didn't make much sense to me, so I suggested changing it to a simpler phrase. Is this phrase necessary (i.e. used in other places)? If so, I can undo this specific change and save it for a separate change that makes the wording simpler in all locations.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The motivation here is that, while I'm implementing a TypeScript polyfill for geometry-interfaces, it could be more clear exactly what math needs to be implemented. For example, some methods that do 3D transforms were linking only to the 2D descriptions in css-transforms-1, so I also added links to 3D math descriptions in css-transforms-2 for clarity as well as for ease of exploration and navigation.
Is this the right way to do it?
A question I have is, why are 2D descriptions separated from 3D descriptions across css-transforms-1 and css-transforms-2? Why doesn't the latest spec (css-transforms-2?) contain all the information so that linking we only need to link to css-transforms-2 and not css-transforms-1?
For now, this is the simplest change to geometry-1, but I feel like it would be better if the latest css-transforms spec had all relevant details, and geometry-* would only link to the latest css-transforms-* spec.
Related issue:
This PR helps ensure links to all math descriptions are present.