- From: shans via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 02:29:44 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
> The fact that it was shipped based on an early draft that was still being debated in the working group, with no experimental flag, is something that reflects poorly on Blink's implementation process. I want to make it very clear for the record how ridiculous this statement sounds. At the 2016 face-to-face meeting which Eric references, the working group spent a considerable amount of time asking browser vendors to implement and ship more of SVG 2. Are we now to be taken to task for fulfilling the working group's wishes? I don't find the SVGWG's reasons for dropping the path() function to be very compelling. While it could be viewed as technically being consistent for the d property to differ from consumers of `<basic-shape>`, this is a distinction that will be lost on most authors. It's far more usable to accept the path() function everywhere, even if SVG never accepts the other `<basic-shape>`s. -- GitHub Notification of comment by shans Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/320#issuecomment-304559804 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 29 May 2017 02:29:51 UTC