W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2013

Re: [whatwg] Questions regarding Path object

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:55:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDCh7ZWehdGZUZAbS8MO1S0GFxpg-rDB11aDiJCf+GmhQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jürg Lehni <lists@scratchdisk.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jürg Lehni <lists@scratchdisk.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 16:17 , Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I like the following naming scheme, as it is really short and already
> familiar for people from the Java world, but I can imagine that a prefix
> would be preferred.
> >
> > Path2D, Shape2D, Gradient2D, Matrix2D
> >
> > Path2d and Shape2d sound reasonable. I don't think there's a immediate
> need to harmonize gradients so we probably want to keep CanvasGradient.
>
> Do you prefer the lowercase 'd' instead of the uppercase 'D'? I think most
> acronyms in JS are uppercased (e.g. JSON), so the latter seems more aligned
> with convention.
>
> And what is required to get such a proposal through? I really think using
> 'Path' as a new global constructor at this point is a bad idea, and could
> cause quite a bit of trouble with apps out there.
>

I think we need to get some browser vendors on board.
However, I believe Firefox has been working on landing 'path' and there was
a patch for WebKit that also landed a partial path object. I'm unsure if
these ended up in shipping browsers.

There is considerable interest in landing hit regions. We should try to
find a way to get them implemented.
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 00:55:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:22 UTC