On Monday, November 18, 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Robert O'Callahan > <[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski < >> [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> '[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> Path is also too generic even in the context of graphics. If we later on >>> want to add a path object for 3-dimensional paths, you end up with Path >>> and >>> Path3D? Yay for consistency. Path2D would immediately inform what >>> dimensions we're dealing with and also that this is to do with graphics, >>> and thus sounds like a good name to me. >>> >> >> Sounds good to me. >> > > Elliot, > > what do you think, is Path2D acceptable? >
Sounds great to me, lets do it! - E
