Re: Miterclip and Arcs joins, and the future of SVG 2 generally

Whatever else happens, you're welcome!

The Chromium project was represented in the "chat" so that angle may be 
a dead end, but I guess it's worth a try. I'm not the appropriate person 
to do that update, though.


On 7/28/20 4:08 PM, Paul LeBeau wrote:
> Awesome work Skef.  Thank you for doing that.
> I have no power myself, but the first step would presumably be to 
> update 266618 with this info.  Then we can hope that we can get some 
> of the Chromium/Opera/Edge folks here to push it over the line.
> Merging this change (and the small changes to implement attribute/CSS 
> support) will presumably instantly give it the 2+ browser 
> implementations it needs to lose its "at risk" status.
> Paul
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 06:01, Skef Iterum < 
> <>> wrote:
>     A while back I implemented Miterclip and Arcs joins in FontForge
>     because I thought they were a good idea (and I didn't realize at
>     first that they weren't implemented much of anywhere else).
>     And because I thought they were a good idea, and I was familiar
>     with the algorithms, I decided to try to get them off the "at
>     risk" list by implementing them in Skia and then a browser. Hence,
>     after a large amount of work:
>     It's very hard to defend code quality in words but anyone who
>     wants to (and has a machine capable of compiling Skia) can pull
>     this over and run viewer --slide StrokeJoins to verify the general
>     lack of "glitches" for themselves.
>     I've now chatted briefly with some of the Skia folks and they say
>     it's unlikely they'll review this CR, let alone integrate it, for
>     the expected "this isn't coming from the product side" reasons.
>     Code quality is therefore not at issue -- it's just an issue of
>     perceived demand.
>     So, two things:
>      1. If anyone is in a position to prompt advocacy for this feature
>         from any group maintaining a browser that uses Skia, now is
>         the time. Opera, maybe? Anyone?
>      2. If no one is in that position it may be time to rethink this
>         part of the standard.
>     Obviously no one asked me to do this work so the time that I've
>     wasted is entirely on me. However, if this is the reality there's
>     a point where standards groups need to ask themselves whether what
>     they've specified amounts to more than an attractive nuisance
>     (like a pool without a fence).
>     Skef Iterum

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2020 03:25:39 UTC