On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jürg Lehni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 2013, at 16:17 , Rik Cabanier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like the following naming scheme, as it is really short and already > familiar for people from the Java world, but I can imagine that a prefix > would be preferred. > > > > Path2D, Shape2D, Gradient2D, Matrix2D > > > > Path2d and Shape2d sound reasonable. I don't think there's a immediate > need to harmonize gradients so we probably want to keep CanvasGradient. > > Do you prefer the lowercase 'd' instead of the uppercase 'D'? I think most > acronyms in JS are uppercased (e.g. JSON), so the latter seems more aligned > with convention. > > And what is required to get such a proposal through? I really think using > 'Path' as a new global constructor at this point is a bad idea, and could > cause quite a bit of trouble with apps out there. > I think we need to get some browser vendors on board. However, I believe Firefox has been working on landing 'path' and there was a patch for WebKit that also landed a partial path object. I'm unsure if these ended up in shipping browsers. There is considerable interest in landing hit regions. We should try to find a way to get them implemented.
