- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:13:00 -0700
- To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:03 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote: > a) Just allow the SVG versions of these various basic shapes? That is, > instead of, for example, > rectangle([<length>|<percentage>][, [<length>|<percentage>]] > why not allow the regular SVG syntax for a <rect>? What is "the regular SVG syntax for a <rect>"? The XML? The attributes? Something else? > b) Arbitrary <path> elements to flow shape are harder what with all the > microsyntax of paths, but since all browsers support SVG anyhow (and in > particular, they all seem to know how to render paths) why not define text > flow for arbitrary paths? What I found a bit tricky in my implementation was > following the left and right sides of paths, but compared to the issue of > concavities (which you seem to be handling with the even-odd fill rule – > that can get a bit odd at times I’m sure) that seems relatively simple in > comparison. Yes, given that we have polygan(), I'm not sure why we wouldn't support path() as well. It's just a polygon() with curved paths, basically - all the other difficulties of path() are already present and handled in polygon(). ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 00:13:47 UTC