- From: Ophir LOJKINE <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 15:05:39 -0700
- To: w3c/editing <editing@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/editing/issues/483@github.com>
lovasoa created an issue (w3c/editing#483) Hi ! I'm a simple web developer, maintainer of the wbo.ophir.dev open source whiteboard, which was recently struck by https://github.com/lovasoa/whitebophir/issues/321 I'm seeking clarification on the design decision to mark `SVGPathSegment` with `[NoInterfaceObject]` in the SVG specification: https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/#InterfaceSVGPathSegment This attribute prevents direct instantiation of `SVGPathSegment` objects in JavaScript, which complicates the use of methods like `setPathData()` that expect a sequence of `SVGPathSegment` objects. Given that `SVGPathSegment` isn't directly constructible, how are developers intended to create and pass path segment objects to `setPathData()`? Is the expectation to use plain JavaScript objects that match the structure of `SVGPathSegment` ? Then shouldn't we have: ```webidl dictionary SVGPathSegmentInit { required DOMString type; required sequence<float> values; }; interface mixin SVGPathData { sequence<SVGPathSegment> getPathData(optional SVGPathDataSettings settings = {}); undefined setPathData(sequence<SVGPathSegmentInit> pathData); }; ``` Thank you for your insights ! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/483 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3c/editing/issues/483@github.com>
Received on Friday, 4 April 2025 22:05:43 UTC