W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-shapes] LC feedback

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:50:58 -0800
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <CEC65EB9.11858%galineau@adobe.com>

On 12/5/13 4:41 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
>> On 12/5/13 4:17 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I don't understand how you would do A. You've presented a simplified
>>>scenario where taking the axis-aligned bounding box works, but that
>>>fails the moment you do anything less trivial.
>> I wouldn't say it fails; you *could* just take the bounding box that
>> encloses all the shapes you find. Whether the result is visually
>> in all or most cases is a different story though. So yeah, my first
>> inclination is best dismissed here.
>We *could*, but we don't, and you're not suggesting we change the
>general behavior. ^_^

I'm only suggesting we *define* this general behavior. To put it another
way, if an implementation did this today it's not clear to me which bit of
the spec makes them obviously non-conformant. As long as it's clear the
result *can* be n paths I think we're good.

>Having a situation where you take the provided shape if it's a single
>fully-connected region, but the bounding box if there's a single
>disconnected pixel, sounds pretty terrible.

Well, if you have a threshold that selects a single pixel you may already
be having an awesome time :)

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 00:51:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC