Re: [Paths] Catmull-Rom and other new path commands

> On Jul 31, 2015, at 2:28 AM, Dean Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I'm slightly concerned about adding new path commands, such as Catmull-Rom. I have nothing against the command itself, but I don't like that there is no nice fallback mechanism.
> 
> How am I supposed to author content that works in an engine that supports this feature, but also works in an engine that doesn't?
> 
> Maybe all new commands should be in a d2 attribute? Yuck. If you use the style approach, at least you could have multiple "d" properties.
> 
> Of course, as soon as you're providing fallback, it makes the argument for providing the new feature less compelling.

An alternate proposal is to support a d CSS property and have different path syntaxes separated by functions. Exactly like the clip-path property does today with basic shapes:

d: “oldPathSyntaxString"
d: path(“oldPathSyntaxString")
d: catmull-rom(catmull-romSyntax)
d: polygon(setOfCoordinates)
d: ….

I agree with your general concern and brought up the same issues before. For this and other reasons we develop the new path syntax in a new module to not block SVG2.


> 
> Dean
> 
> PS. And if we're going to break the syntax, why didn't we add an arc command that mortals can understand? :)

We discussed to align with Canvas Path API and add new segments but we simply run out of meaningful letters ;)

Greetings,
Dirk