[css-shapes-2] The readiness to ship for new path() function

[BorisChiou]

path(), which defined in [css-shapes-2], is a new supported basic shape. It seems Safari supports it for clip-path already, and Firefox would like to ship it for clip-path in bug 1488530 (i.e. clip-path: path()). I would like to make sure is it ready to ship? What does CSS working group think about the shipping of path() function?
Thanks.

[astearns]

I think this would be a good thing to discuss at our upcoming meeting (and here in this thread until the meeting happens).

We could bring in path() to level 1 and republish that (with a bunch of other changes that have been piling up). Or we could keep it in level 2 and get a sense from the group whether it would be good to ship (personally, I think it would be fine).

I have a slight preference for the former path. What do others think?

[BorisChiou]

Agree. Either level 1 or level 2 is ok to me. BTW, there is a thread to discuss responsive path in twitter [1], so it'd be better to have more discussion about path() in the next upcoming meeting (or maybe in SVG working group meeting).
[1] e.g. https://twitter.com/AmeliasBrain/status/1166752022504148993?s=20

[astearns]

We just discussed this and decided to add path() to level 1: #4270 (comment)

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed is it OK to ship clip-path:path(), and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Impls can ship clip-path:path()

The full IRC log of that discussion

<astearns> topic: is it OK to ship clip-path:path()
<astearns> github: https://github.com//issues/4271
<TabAtkins> astearns: There was a second gh issue we didn't send the comments to
<TabAtkins> astearns: An impl was asking if it was okay to ship clip-path:path()
<TabAtkins> astearns: Because they needed to point to an official draft that had this path() thing specified, and all they had was the diff spec
<TabAtkins> astearns: So in my mind the intent of moving this to level 1 is to let impls ship it.
<TabAtkins> heycam: clip-path:path() is already shipping in WK, I believe. Not in Chrome yet. Ready in firefox for a while.
<TabAtkins> heycam: Just wanted to make sure nothing drastic would happen to the syntax.
<TabAtkins> krit: CSS Masking is already in CR, so implementing clip-path is fine; this is specifically about the path() function.
<TabAtkins> astearns: Does anyone think Gecko should *not* ship the syntax?
<TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Impls can ship clip-path:path()