This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/ I just observed that the notation used seems to be col,row (e.g. second element in first line is 'a21'), which is fine and perfectly valid. *But* most of the geometry books use the other way around: row,col (so in the quoted example, it would be 'a12'). An example (from wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_%28mathematics%29#Notation Maybe it would be nice to follow the row,col notation?
(In reply to Adenilson Cavalcanti from comment #0) > http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/ > > I just observed that the notation used seems to be col,row (e.g. second > element in first line is 'a21'), which is fine and perfectly valid. > > *But* most of the geometry books use the other way around: row,col (so in > the quoted example, it would be 'a12'). > > An example (from wikipedia): > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_%28mathematics%29#Notation > > Maybe it would be nice to follow the row,col notation? I sympathize with your proposal. The spec is actually based on implemented behavior with MSCSSMatrix and WebKitCSSMatrix. The main reason however is the specified (and also implemented) behavior in CSS Transforms. Both specs, geometry interfaces as well as CSS Transforms, should match as close as possible. Better to have a rather untypical notation than diverging notations.