W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Minutes, July 15 2009 SVG WG telcon

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:34:20 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0907150834u6ea41b0bn7580bab931558280@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-svg@w3.org
2009/7/15 Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>:
>
> The SVG 1.1 PathSegList interfaces provide some additional benefits in that
> it gives read-write access to segments in the paths.

Yes, read/write access to path segments is very cool - and I think
it's a high priority item (for me at least).  Otherwise the author has
to track everything manually.

> The thing that I
> personally dislike about it is the notion of having a normalized and a
> non-normalized segmentlist that are always synchronized with each other.

Why don't you just do what Webkit does: normalize everything!
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26487

:)

Being serious for a second, what is the use case for having both
normalized and non-normalized path segments in the DOM?

What do authors prefer?  Personally I could work with either, it's not
too much work from an author perspective but the normalizing rules
have to be clear (is L100,0 always turned into h100, etc).

What do implementors prefer?  I'm sure this depends on the underlying
vector graphics library being used, cairo, etc.

Regards,
Jeff
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 15:34:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:42 GMT