- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:21:24 -0800
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm unsure if we should promote "d" to CSS. > "d" is certainly the content of the path. It would be as if you allow > styling 'src' on the html image or content of a <p>. "d" is the content of the path in *exactly* the same way that x/y/width/height is the content of a rect. It's just a way of specifying the geometry, and if we find it valuable to be able to specify the geometry of some of the elements via CSS, we should presumably find it valuable to be able to specify all of them. There's no meaningful difference between <rect x=0 y=0 width=10 height=20 /> and <path d="M0 0 h 10 v 20 h -10 v -20" />, except that they offer tradeoffs between ease-of-authoring/reading and power. (Oh, this shows that I accidentally skipped one of the properties - "points" should be on the list.) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 18:22:11 UTC