- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 11:36:30 -0700
- To: Philip Rogers <pdr@google.com>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Philip Rogers <pdr@google.com> wrote: > Dirk, > > The SVG path syntax is pretty difficult to use (IIRC it was designed before > gzip which is why it uses one-character commands) so I understand wanting to > improve that for the long-term. It looks like there has been quite a bit of > discussion already about new path specs. > > For consistency with the other geometry attributes, I don't see many costs > to promoting 'd' as a simple string presentation attribute. The proposal > would be to have it work just like animating 'd' works today: string -> > string where the interpolation is done on the parsed representation. I > wasn't able to find arguments against this in the archives. Do you have a > link to previous discussions of this? Yeah, agreed that if we promoted it (and we should) it should be fine to just give the property a grammar of "<string>" for now, and then improve it with a more readable form afterwards. That way we dont' have to worry about the differences between path-data parsing and CSS tokenizing, we can just use the same rules for both, which allows copy/paste. Then the more readable form can actually use keywords and functions and units, oh my! ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 18:37:17 UTC