Re: [svgwg] grammar for "closepath can substitute for final coordinate" is broken

The Working Group just discussed `Path grammar`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Topic: Path grammar<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Github: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/325<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Eric: I think this is also editorial, but it's part of that big pull request about the grammar, that needs to be properly reviewed.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Amelia: Good point. We have 8 open PRs. If we can get those reviewed and merged, that would close a few issues.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> ...And some of these were contributed by non-WG members, so if Liam can follow up to get everything sorted from an IP perspective, that would help.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Liam: Which one?<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Amelia: There are two. Marked by the red X on the PR list, because they can't be merged without it.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Dirk: There are actually two PRs about path grammar, one by fuchsia, and one by Eric.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Eric: Mine will be redundant if the other is merged.<br>
&lt;liam> https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/346/files<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Tav: Can we be careful about merging these as separate patches, so that we can keep the z-closing path for 2.1.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Liam: Looking at the diffs, some of these still talk about the bearing feature, didn't we remove that?<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Amelia: I think that's been deferred to the SVG Paths module.<br>
&lt;liam> (i.e. this isn't a minimal patch to fix issue 346)<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Tav: But for Z segment completing, we want to keep that for 2.1. So we could fix the grammar with it included as one patch, and then have a separate commit to remove it from 2.0<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Eric: I'd prefer to start with the simple PR that's almost ready to go, and then focus on the larger PR later.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Amelia: I think Tav's concern is that that will make the git histories more complicated, to remove content, fix other parts, then in a separate branch restore the content and the fixes, plus additional fixes.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> ... But if you're willing to sort that out, go ahead whichever way makes sense for you.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Eric: Sure, although I don't think it's high priority when we don't have any implementations that have committed to ship it.<br>
&lt;ericwilligers> I have volunteered to look after the Paths chapter.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Liam: It sounds like with all the different changes, we might not be able to use fuchsia's PR, after all, so the IPR issue would be moot.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> ... Not sure about the other one, about solid-color and solid-opacity.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Dirk: This was fairly recent, I did ask Paul if he could sign off the IP contribution. Will wait to see if he replies.<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Amelia: Although really, this could just be editorial. It's cleaning up bits left behind by the removal of &lt;solidcolor>.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/325#issuecomment-401907846 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 2 July 2018 19:23:23 UTC