- From: Boris Dalstein via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:56:36 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
Addendum: I do agree that **if segment-completing close path operations are added to the standard for all path drawto operations**, then it might makes sense to consider the two forms non-equivalent. One would be a 4-sided polygon, while the other would be a 5-sided polygon (with one side being zero-length). But as far as SVG 1.1 is concerned, I think it is more reasonable to interpret the two forms as being equivalent. And changing whether the two forms are equivalent between SVG 1.1 and SVG 2 may or may not be a good idea. I'd say, why not, it would make the syntax more explicit about how many control points should the user be allowed to manipulate in editing tools (or in scripting APIs, as in your case). It doesn't really matter for rendering tools, since even explicit zero-length segments are not rendered anyway. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dalboris Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/753#issuecomment-557609981 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 22 November 2019 16:56:38 UTC