This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Web IDL clarifies anticlockwise parameter of ellipse is not optional while arc's is optional. void arc(unrestricted double x, unrestricted double y, unrestricted double radius, unrestricted double startAngle, unrestricted double endAngle, optional boolean anticlockwise = false); void ellipse(unrestricted double x, unrestricted double y, unrestricted double radiusX, unrestricted double radiusY, unrestricted double rotation, unrestricted double startAngle, unrestricted double endAngle, boolean anticlockwise); However, ellipse explanation seems to imply that anticlockwise parameter of ellipse is optional. Focus on "(defaulting to clockwise)". context . ellipse(x, y, radiusX, radiusY, rotation, startAngle, endAngle, anticlockwise) path . ellipse(x, y, radiusX, radiusY, rotation, startAngle, endAngle, anticlockwise) Adds points to the subpath such that the arc described by the circumference of the ellipse described by the arguments, starting at the given start angle and ending at the given end angle, going in the given direction (defaulting to clockwise), is added to the path, connected to the previous point by a straight line. I think anticlockwise parameter of ellipse should be optional to match arc's.
Shouldn't everything after RadiusX be optional? This also applies to arc()
(In reply to comment #1) > Shouldn't everything after RadiusX be optional? > This also applies to arc() No, only anticlockwise argument of arc is optional. So I think anticlockwise argument of ellipse also should be optional. Now arc() in WebKit implemented all arguments are optional. It is wrong. I submitted the issue for Blink: https://codereview.chromium.org/14654002/
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Shouldn't everything after RadiusX be optional? > > This also applies to arc() > > No, only anticlockwise argument of arc is optional. So I think anticlockwise > argument of ellipse also should be optional. > Now arc() in WebKit implemented all arguments are optional. It is wrong. > I submitted the issue for Blink: https://codereview.chromium.org/14654002/ sure. My point is that in order to draw a simple circle, you have to provide a bunch of parameters. Seems unnecessary
(In reply to comment #3) > sure. > My point is that in order to draw a simple circle, you have to provide a > bunch of parameters. Seems unnecessary I agree with you. I'm fine about convenient overloaded arc and ellipse functions. I think we can suggest this in another bug. What I want in this bug is making ellipse consistent with arc.
> What I want in this bug is making ellipse consistent with arc. If you look at the history of ellipse in the whatwg mail archive, you will see that Ian did this intentionally.
(In reply to comment #5) > > What I want in this bug is making ellipse consistent with arc. > > If you look at the history of ellipse in the whatwg mail archive, you will > see that Ian did this intentionally. Thanks for good information. Unfortunately, I could not find it. If you know the link, could you let me know? BTW, What I found is this mail: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-March/035239.html Ian used ellipse like this: context.ellipse(x, y, width/2, height/2, angle, 0, Math.PI*2); At that time, Ian may thought the last parameter (a.k.a anticlockwise) is optional.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > > What I want in this bug is making ellipse consistent with arc. > > > > If you look at the history of ellipse in the whatwg mail archive, you will > > see that Ian did this intentionally. > > Thanks for good information. > Unfortunately, I could not find it. If you know the link, could you let me > know? > see : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Sep/0321.html
(In reply to comment #7) > see : > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Sep/0321.html Thanks a lot. It is intended. Ok, I agree. This bug is resolved.