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

[csswg-drafts] [css-shapes-2] Minor comments on shape() (#5841)

From: Dean Jackson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 00:52:29 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-780946188-1609980747-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
grorg has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-shapes-2] Minor comments on shape() ==
I was a few seconds late providing review feedback on #5711 . It's probably easier to read my comments inline there, but I'll repeat them here.

1. Minor typo: corresponds
2. The spec needs to describe animation, specifically that it works the same as SVG paths since the `shape` syntax is a mapping to SVG path primitives. It should probably call out the fact that the `curve` operator actually produces two segment types, so it may not be possible to smoothly animate between two `curve`s.
3. For that reason, I'd consider splitting cubic and quadratic into different operations rather than rely on the number of parameters
4. Similarly, a `curve` and `smooth` might actually be the same segment type as far as animation is concerned! Confusing!
5. I don't think `via` is a good term for bezier control points. The curve does not (typically) go through those points, which is what the definition of via would suggest. Maybe `using` is a better term?
6. In SVG syntax you specify the control points before the end point. Is there a reason this was not followed here? The rationale behind that in SVG is that the point specified last in commands is where the pen ends up (where the next segment starts).

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5841 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 00:52:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:25 UTC