Remove support for segment-completing close path

[ewilligers]

Segment-completing close path commands, where coordinates are omitted
and implicitly replaced with the initial point of the subpath,
lack implementations and have been removed from the spec.

Discussed in #385

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed Remove support for segment-completing close path PR.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<BogdanBrinza> topic: Remove support for segment-completing close path PR
<BogdanBrinza> GitHub: https://github.com//pull/398
<BogdanBrinza> I volunteered to do a (simple) review and we discussed the desire to move this to the Paths spec, not just remove
<BogdanBrinza> We'll need to ask Liam if that's ok to accept as is. The change doesn't change the specification text - just the presentation of the formula.

[ewilligers]

The grammar changes become redundant if #346 proceeds. That PR can be reviewed first, then I'll rebase so only my prose edits remain.

[dirkschulze]

@liamquin There seem to be questions about moving this to the path spec?

[dirkschulze]

Thought the WG logs seem to have a limited context to this question. CC @boggydigital

[ewilligers]

There seem to be questions about moving this to the path spec?

It remains in the path spec (like bearing and Catmull Rom commands), we are simply removing it from SVG 2.

This is ready for review.

[dirkschulze]

The revert looks good to me but doesn't fully preserve the text of SVG 1.1. Maybe we should copy the text back in.

[dirkschulze]

The original text also said what the next initial point is when "closepath" is not followed by a moveto.

[dirkschulze]

Also, IMO it is important to keep the original sentence that a lineto to the initial point is not the same as specifying a closepath.

Maybe we should copy those sentences over: https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/paths.html#PathDataClosePathCommand

[ewilligers]

The sentences have now been copied.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed Segment-completing close-path.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<AmeliaBR> Topic: Segment-completing close-path
<AmeliaBR> GitHub: https://github.com//pull/398
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: When reviewing, I found a statement that seemed to be missing relative to 1.1, not sure if that was intentional.
<AmeliaBR> Tav: That looks like it should be there.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: Ok. Not sure if I should merge the PR & make a separate edit later, or...
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: Might be nicer to merge it all at once. You might be able to edit' Eric's PR, or just suggest & wait for him to follow up.
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: Phillipe, did you join to say something or just listen in?
<AmeliaBR> PLH: Mostly listen in, but also make sure you had feedback. I understand you've asked for 4-month extension, to after TPAC.
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: That's what we asked, to give a chance to get the spec updated.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: Would that be the spec, or also test suite & implementations?
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: For sure we could do a republished CR, but I'm not sure of the full test suite.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: What about the implementation?
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: So, the plan is that we are removing things that don't have strong implementer commitments. It's possible there will be some implementations not done.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: I think we want implementations, too, by TPAC.
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: We're using the 2 existing implementations standard for cutting features, so we should probably meet that, if not full implementations.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: And what about testing? Will that happen, to confirm implementations?
<AmeliaBR> Tav: I'm trying to submit tests for things that are relevant to Inkscape, but doesn't cover all features for browsers.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: We really need tests to be able to confirm implementations.
<AmeliaBR> ... I don't want to ask the rest of admin for the extension, and then in four months we're not where we said we would be.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: I don't realistically think we can promise all the tests.
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: The main block is not enough people to do the work. So maybe one thing you can do is talk with member org reps about whether they can find more personnel.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: So far, Firefox has not seemed very interested. Microsoft has been pulling back. Eric is back from Google, so that's something.
<AmeliaBR> ... Do we know how much work it is?
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: Amelia started an issue to list areas needing testing. Would that be helpful?
<plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2/changes.html
<krit> https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/changes.html
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: It's a start, but not complete. We don't really have a good list of all changes that were made that need implementaions, let alone which ones have implementations.
<AmeliaBR> ... Where implementations exist, there should be tests in browser's own test suites, but we haven't got any support from them for importing into WPT.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: What about the changes list in the spec?
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: It's rather messy. My issues in GitHub were trying to summarize the net changes & which ones were normative.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: OK, well, it would be helpful to have that final list of changes.
<liam> David's spreadsheet - https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=FD9E7123283F274C!594647&ithint=file%2cxlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AIguPi1fOc66FII
<liam> (some of the FALSE cells shoud be TRUE now though i think)
<AmeliaBR> Liam: There was also a spreadsheet by David Storey of all DOM IDL changes & implementations status.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: Ok, I will follow up, but I'm not sure if 4 months to TPAC is enough time for an extension.
<AmeliaBR> Tav: One thing about extending to TPAC is that some work could happen there, in person.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: At this point, we do want to extend the working group. The question is how long.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: Would it help to have multiple steps? A timeframe for the updated CR, then test suite and implementations. It's hard to estimate the whole project right now. Most of the time will be the test suite, but that depends on what is left in the spec.
<AmeliaBR> PLH: The main issue right now, is if the WG is out of charter, we cannot update the CR. So it might help to have multiple-step extensions.
<AmeliaBR> ... I think I've got enough information to keep working at this point. I will likely come back next week to give an update.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk & all: Thanks Phillipe.

[ewilligers]

Please review. The statements from SVG 1.1 have been restored.