LGTM3 On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 9:21:45 PM UTC+1 Mike Taylor wrote:
> 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 >>> >>> 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 the list 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/a32fead2-59ff-4877-9b02-09ce170285ebn%40chromium.org.
