What's the use case?
I intentionally didn't add this to the spec when I was adding the last set
of path-related features, because it seems entirely redundant with Path
objects. I thought we'd want people to move away from using the implicit
path, rather than making it more powerful.
I
Hi Norto,
On Nov 2, 2013, at 02:19 , Michael Norton no...@me.com wrote:
Hi Jürg,
On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jürg Lehni li...@scratchdisk.com wrote:
More recently, things appear to have been named a bit more specifically,
often with prefixes, e.g. HTMLCanvasElement, DOMParser,
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
I can obviously adjust our in-tree tests, but this test was part of jQuery's
regression test suite, and I would be slightly surprised if there's no one
out there using jQuery 1.2.6 (or later, up until the code went away; I
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jürg Lehni li...@scratchdisk.com wrote:
Wouldn't it have been more aligned with this existing API also to have a
ctx.createPath() ?
Objects not having constructors is a bad API practice we are moving away from.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Jürg Lehni li...@scratchdisk.com wrote:
Thinking more about this discussion, I had an idea for an approach that
would avoid such future clashes all together:
Instead of exposing constructors, why not simply expose the methods that
create them?
There already
On Nov 3, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
Does this mean that ctx.currentPath != ctx.currentPath?
Yes
That's bad!
Why would it be bad (apart from being different)?
It's strange to say
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
Does this mean that ctx.currentPath != ctx.currentPath?
Yes
That's bad!
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Jürg Lehni li...@scratchdisk.com wrote:
What's the use case?
I intentionally didn't add this to the spec when I was adding the last
set
of path-related features, because it seems entirely redundant with Path
objects. I thought we'd want people to move
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Jürg Lehni li...@scratchdisk.com wrote:
What's the use case?
I intentionally didn't add this to the spec when I was adding the last
set
of path-related features, because it seems
FWIW - I think that
ctx.currentPath != ctx.currentPath
is a horrible mistake and we should fix WebKit.
Dean
On 4 Nov 2013, at 2:47 pm, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Jürg
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Dean Jackson d...@apple.com wrote:
FWIW - I think that
ctx.currentPath != ctx.currentPath
is a horrible mistake and we should fix WebKit.
Should we fix it by replacing it with getters/setters or by having it
return the actual copy (which could be hard to
If you return a path in user-space, what do you get if you call
getCurrentPath with a singular transform?
ctx.moveTo(0,0);
ctx.lineTo(1,1);
ctx.scale(0,0);
var p = ctx.getCurrentPath();
?
Rob
--
Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
If you return a path in user-space, what do you get if you call
getCurrentPath with a singular transform?
ctx.moveTo(0,0);
ctx.lineTo(1,1);
ctx.scale(0,0);
var p = ctx.getCurrentPath();
I mixed up my
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
If you return a path in user-space, what do you get if you call
getCurrentPath with a singular transform?
ctx.moveTo(0,0);
14 matches
Mail list logo
