- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:56:29 -0800
- To: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
- Cc: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
After some discussion with Shane, we have a new proposal: 1. Drop fill-rule from path() and polygon(). This keeps all the shape functions as just specifying the path geometry, so they're usable everywhere without confusion. 2. In properties that need to know the shape's fill, just accompany those functions with an optional fill-rule in the property grammar, like "even-odd path(...)". This allows just the specific instances that require fill information to receive it. This avoids all the confusing situations. We don't have the potential of useless fill-rules in motion-path, and we don't have confusing conflicts between the path() specified fill-rule and the 'fill-rule' specified one in <path> elements. You still get to supply the fill-rule in the situations where it's relevant, like shape-inside. I think this should have minimal or zero compat impact? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 21:57:23 UTC