- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 05:12:23 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Not many people get involved in the shape() discussion on the calls anyway. I think that'll depend somewhat on who you get involved (e.g. @LeaVerou cares a lot about this stuff and @SebastianZ and @kizu pay a lot of attention to syntax); and how well you are able to convey your ideas when you intro the topic. It's definitely trickier for syntax, but if you break it down I think people will be able to follow. The grammar looks pretty good to me, fwiw. I think you're missing a grouping operator or two for the `arc` command? Also I'd recommend dropping the `<by-to>` production since it's only used once and the expansion is almost as short. I think the reorderability question is maybe worth bringing up on a call, since it's a higher-level question. You'll have to walk a bit through the potentially-reorderable segments of the syntax and explain what that would mean. But afaict it wouldn't be ambiguous, and allowing reordering allows a different mental model while you're writing the command, i.e. I can then write the parameters in the order that the line "passes through" them instead of jumping to the destination of each segment and then walking back to describe the nuances of how we got there. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10649#issuecomment-2418516530 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2024 05:12:24 UTC