W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2008

[whatwg] Canvas line styles comments

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:19:00 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0802100039550.20115@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Philip Taylor wrote:
> 
> "The lineCap attribute defines the type of endings that UAs shall place 
> on the end of lines." - it seems weird to use "shall", since this is the 
> only place in the spec (except the list of RFC2119 keywords) that uses 
> it. The other line* properties don't try define to conformance 
> requirements like that (e.g. they say "The lineWidth attribute gives the 
> width of lines" which is only informative), so I can't tell whether the 
> lineCap one is trying to be a requirement.

Woops. Fixed.


> "The lineJoin attribute defines the type of corners that that UAs will 
> place where two lines meet." - s/that that/that/

Fixed.


> "A join exists at any point in a subpath shared by two consecutive pairs 
> of lines." - should be "two consecutive lines" or "a consecutive pair of 
> lines".

Fixed.


> "In addition to the point where the join occurs, two additional points 
> are relevant to each join: the corners found half the line width away 
> from the join point, perpendicular to the two lines joining at the join 
> point." - I'm not sure what that means. Nothing can be perpendicular to 
> both of the two lines (unless they're parallel). For each line, there 
> are the two corners half the line width away from the join point 
> perpendicular to that line, but that gives four corners in total.

I've tried to explain it better. Let me know if it's not ok.


> "A filled triangle connecting ... with the third point of the triangle 
> being the point of the join itself (where the lines touch on the inside 
> of the join), must be rendered at all joins." - the "inside of the join" 
> bit seems unhelpful and unclear (since it's not the opposite of the 
> "outside of the join") - it'd be better just to say "... being the join 
> point, must be ...", since that's the term used earlier for that point.

That simplification is a great idea. Done.


> "The round value means that a filled arc connecting the two corners on 
> the outside of the join, with the diameter equal to the line width and 
> the origin at the point of the join, must be rendered at joins." - if I 
> was being pedantic (which I am) I'd say there's two possible arcs 
> connecting those two corners (one clockwise, one anticlockwise), so it 
> should specify which one is meant. But I don't know how to easily say 
> that, and an implementor would have to be silly to do it the wrong way, 
> so maybe a precise definition isn't needed.

I have tried to out-pedanticise you.


> Should lineJoin='round';moveTo(0,0);lineTo(100,0);lineTo(0,0);stroke() 
> draw a semicircle at (100,0) pointing rightwards? There is no "outside 
> of the join" there, so the spec doesn't say what should happen.

Fixed.


> "The miter value means that a filled four-sided polygon must be rendered 
> at the join, with two of the lines being the perpendicular edges of the 
> joining lines, ..." - the miter-polygon lines aren't the perpendicular 
> edges - they're only half of each edge (between the join point and the 
> outside corners). It's probably easier to define the polygon's points 
> (being the join point, the two outside corners, and the point where the 
> two continuated outside edges intersect).

I've tried redefining this using a triangle.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2008 17:19:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:39 UTC