W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shapes-2] WIP: Add a draw() shape syntax, which accepts shape-segments equivalent to (#5711)

From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 11:32:24 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-737173567-1606908742-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> > Good point, I didn't knot at! Though SVG markers don't play a role in CSS shapes. Do they? In which case, arcs and curves are interchangeable.
> 
> True, currently. But (from [w3c/svgwg#119](https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/119) and [w3c/svgwg#320](https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/320)) the "d" property uses the path() function (see also PR [w3c/svgwg#374](https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/374)). Although it doesn't yet reference css-shapes, it seems to me that where `path()` applies, `shape()` would always apply too. And this looks pretty good to me:
> 
> ```
> <svg>
>  <style>
>    path {
>      d: shape(move to 0 0 arc to 100% 100% cw small 90deg);
>      marker-start: url(#marker);
>      marker-end: url(#marker);
>    }
>  </style>
>  <marker id="marker" markerWidth="10" markerHeight="10" refX="5" refY="5">
>   <circle cx="5" cy="5" r="5"/>
>  </marker>
>  <path></path>
> </svg>
> ```
> 
> Actually, that's another point - ideally the grammar for "arc" would allow the `radius`, `arc-sweep` `arc-large` and `angle` to be reordered, as this can be done without ambiguity. I _think_ that means it should look like `arc <by-to> <coordinate-pair> [<radius> || <arc-sweep> || <arc-large> || <angle>]`, but don't quote me on that. No doubt these are some of the editorial nits Tab will be picking.



> > Good point, I didn't knot at! Though SVG markers don't play a role in CSS shapes. Do they? In which case, arcs and curves are interchangeable.
> 
> True, currently. But (from [w3c/svgwg#119](https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/119) and [w3c/svgwg#320](https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/320)) the "d" property uses the path() function (see also PR [w3c/svgwg#374](https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/374)). Although it doesn't yet reference css-shapes, it seems to me that where `path()` applies, `shape()` would always apply too. And this looks pretty good to me:
> 
> ```
> <svg>
>  <style>
>    path {
>      d: shape(move to 0 0 arc to 100% 100% cw small 90deg);
>      marker-start: url(#marker);
>      marker-end: url(#marker);
>    }
>  </style>
>  <marker id="marker" markerWidth="10" markerHeight="10" refX="5" refY="5">
>   <circle cx="5" cy="5" r="5"/>
>  </marker>
>  <path></path>
> </svg>
> ```
> 
> Actually, that's another point - ideally the grammar for "arc" would allow the `radius`, `arc-sweep` `arc-large` and `angle` to be reordered, as this can be done without ambiguity. I _think_ that means it should look like `arc <by-to> <coordinate-pair> [<radius> || <arc-sweep> || <arc-large> || <angle>]`, but don't quote me on that. No doubt these are some of the editorial nits Tab will be picking.

Yes I think making arc parameters order-agnostic would be better. Let me revise.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by noamr
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/5711#issuecomment-737173567 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2020 11:32:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:31:36 UTC