W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > January 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shapes] Allow CSS grammar for path shapes (#5674)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 00:26:54 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-755794583-1609979213-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-shapes] Allow CSS grammar for path shapes`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Merge this PR into next level of Shapes`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [css-shapes] Allow CSS grammar for path shapes<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5674<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I've been looking for something like this for a while. SVG path is a little weird. RIght now you have to do path as a string and you can't concat a string it means you can't build path with variables<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: User friction thing<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Proposal, not from me, with good syntax converting svg syntax to css friendly version. I really like how it looks. Extensible to logical coordinates. I think this is a nice good approach and I'l like to add to spec<br>
&lt;dino> q+<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I reviewed the PR and discussion and I think it's a good prop, well specified<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;astearns> ack dino<br>
&lt;dael> dino: I left some minor comments, but don't care if they're not addressed.<br>
&lt;dael> dino: If one was to animate; this was defined as eq to SVG path so thus if you animate between the svg rules apply and thus you need same number of segments with same type?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Yeah<br>
&lt;dael> dino: Therefore a curve, if a command was curve xy via something if one gave 2 coord and the other 1 they would not animate, right?<br>
&lt;dael> dino: THe distinction between quadratic and cubic is number of params, not command type.<br>
&lt;dael> dino: Maybe a bit strange curve says where it's going first. But again it's minor. I'll mention it, but I don't care<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: And one of the reasons to take the PR is so we can open more issues to make amendments. I assume animations is not defined in PR so we'd unpack in spec.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Yeah<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: dino you mentioned you made comments. I saw one on PR about typo<br>
&lt;dael> dino: They're all minor and can be issues after<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Hearing agreement. Objections to merge this PR?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Merge this PR into next level of Shapes<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5674#issuecomment-755794583 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2021 00:26:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:31:38 UTC