On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 01:54:55 +0100, /#!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote:
In some contexts, the "DOM" in DOMMatrix feels out of place, for example
in
WebGL. Why not call it something like TransformationMatrix,
GraphicalMatrix, Matrix3D, or something more generic like that so the
name
is agnostic of where you are using the class. I'm not manipulating DOM
inside of a WebGL context.
I made discussion about this on Discourse:
http://discourse.wicg.io/t/the-name-of-dommatrix-is-out-of-place/1169
A few points:
* I think the name should be consistent between the various interfaces in
the Geometry spec.
* We can't use no prefix at all because Web content already uses "Point",
"Matrix", etc.
* "DOM" is typically understood to include everything that is defined in
terms of WebIDL these days, not just the objects that are descendants of
window.document.
* "DOMString" is a name that is used for all strings in the Web platform,
and this hasn't been a problem in practice (although that name is not
visible to JS).
* The common interactions with DOMMatrix will not involve touching the
name itself, but more use methods called e.g. "transformMatrix" and so on.
* These names have been bikeshedded in the past, where we concluded that
"DOM" prefix was least bad (it's short, globally applicable).
All in all, I agree that it's not ideal (I would have preferred no prefix
if the Web hadn't claimed the names), but I'm not convinced that it is a
good idea to change the name of DOMMatrix at this point. In particular, I
disagree that the name is inappropriate for 2d canvas or WebGL.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
