- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:31:51 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, "whatwg@lists.whatwg.org" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
Sounds good. Let's do it. On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski < > jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Path is also too generic even in the context of graphics. If we later on >> want to add a path object for 3-dimensional paths, you end up with Path >> and >> Path3D? Yay for consistency. Path2D would immediately inform what >> dimensions we're dealing with and also that this is to do with graphics, >> and thus sounds like a good name to me. >> > > Sounds good to me. > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w >
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 00:32:17 UTC