Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shapes-2] The readiness to ship for new path() function (#4271)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `is it OK to ship clip-path:path()`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Impls can ship clip-path:path()`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;astearns> topic: is it OK to ship clip-path:path()<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4271<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: There was a second gh issue we didn't send the comments to<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: An impl was asking if it was okay to ship clip-path:path()<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: Because they needed to point to an official draft that had this path() thing specified, and all they had was the diff spec<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: So in my mind the intent of moving this to level 1 is to let impls ship it.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> heycam: clip-path:path() is already shipping in WK, I believe. Not in Chrome yet. Ready in firefox for a while.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> heycam: Just wanted to make sure nothing drastic would happen to the syntax.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> krit: CSS Masking is already in CR, so implementing clip-path is fine; this is specifically about the path() function.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: Does anyone think Gecko should *not* ship the syntax?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Impls can ship clip-path:path()<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4271#issuecomment-531681208 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 16 September 2019 08:15:05 UTC