LGTM2 On 2/12/25 10:59 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
Indeed, thanks for working through this! LGTM1.On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 3:28:47 AM UTC+9 Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:07 AM Noam Rosenthal <nrosent...@chromium.org> wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 10:49:02 AM UTC Noam Rosenthal wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:51 PM Noam Rosenthal <nrosent...@chromium.org> wrote: * https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10647 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10647> This one is not actionable and doesn't affect shape(), it's about path(). I think "not actionable <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actionable>" isn't a great way to describe this issue: Lea's suggesting that this functionality be provided as part of the `path()` function and that `shape()` not be defined at this time. That's a concrete action that affects `shape()`. My bad, I mixed it with #9889 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9889>. it does affect `shape()` as in proposing to do something else instead, which is described in general terms (which is what I mean by "not actionable", I should have been more specific). Update: I'm working through this issue to gain clarity about whether it contains any objections that should change something about the `shape()` feature, and will update here when this is resolved. Coming back to this: the CSSWG has resolved that we'll keep `shape()` as is, and separately in the expand `path()` to have a more restrictive (but still CSS-y) version derived from `shape()`. See resolution <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10647#issuecomment-2654446913>. I went over thelist of [css-shapes-2] issues <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22css-shapes-2%22> again and all the issues either have a resolution that matches what the implementation already does, or is a future thing that's compatible with the current `shape()` (both spec and chromium/webkit implementations). So I'm re-instating my intent to ship `shape()` as implemented and the request for API owner approval :) Thank you for working through that, even though it resulted in no change to this intent! --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f571ae30-5d66-44b7-999d-12d06a8b0123n%40chromium.org <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f571ae30-5d66-44b7-999d-12d06a8b0123n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/8b58875e-cb8a-4ae1-9616-d620371a4875%40chromium.org.
