- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:35:50 +0200
- To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:30:33 +0200, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > One more data point, I installed the Corel viewer from circa 2003 and > it too matches ASV, Batik, WebKit, Firefox, etc. so we have pretty clear > concensus > about what the expected behaviour of rx/ry is. > > Also, one thing that was probably overlooked in the divergent > implementations > is the wording "effective value for 'rx' as equal to 'ry'". That > statement implies the > effective value used for subsequent processing rather than implying the > same > variable is used for both. > > While we can attempt to clean up the English, would it be more prudent > in future to embellilsh our specs with code samples as used in RFCs to > make > sure things like this are non-ambiguous? > > Alex I would really like there to be some better wording in the spec for this, providing unambigous steps to follow to compute the effective value of rx and ry. And as for examples, having the shapes-rect-03-t test should be substantially better than just having the shapes-rect-01-t test, where a fail on the effective value for rx/ry is rather hard to see (slight difference in the top-right rects). Cheers /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 11:36:26 UTC