W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: [motion-1] On path syntax

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:25:19 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
CC: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <45256310-F27E-4E51-B6EC-4BB5E86E3EA4@adobe.com>
On 2/16/16, 1:56 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>After some discussion with Shane, we have a new proposal:
>
>1. Drop fill-rule from path() and polygon().  This keeps all the shape
>functions as just specifying the path geometry, so they're usable
>everywhere without confusion.
>2. In properties that need to know the shape's fill, just accompany
>those functions with an optional fill-rule in the property grammar,
>like "even-odd path(...)".  This allows just the specific instances
>that require fill information to receive it.
>
>This avoids all the confusing situations.  We don't have the potential
>of useless fill-rules in motion-path, and we don't have confusing
>conflicts between the path() specified fill-rule and the 'fill-rule'
>specified one in <path> elements.  You still get to supply the
>fill-rule in the situations where it's relevant, like shape-inside.
>
>I think this should have minimal or zero compat impact?

I’d be OK with this change (if the compat impact is minimal). It’s certainly better than having two functions for each that only differed in whether they accepted a fill-rule parameter.

I’d also be OK with leaving fill-rule in the functions, even for properties that ignore it. I don’t find it that confusing or author-hostile. An optional parameter seems like a good fit to me for a sometimes-relevant value.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 02:25:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 17 February 2016 02:25:52 UTC