W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: Patterns and Clipping (Adobe SVG Plug-In)

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferraio@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 08:06:09 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011106080302.00df5f00@mailsj>
To: Vincent Hardy <vincent.hardy@sun.com>
Cc: Jeff Tupper / Pedagoguery Software Inc <tupper@peda.com>, www-svg@w3.org, AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
My assumption all along, since patterns were first introduced into an SVG 
spec, was that tiles were painted left-to-right, top-to-bottom (assuming no 
transformations), which agrees with what Vincent says.

Unfortunately, the specification doesn't seem to say anything explicitly. 
It should, since drawing order matters in some circumstances. I'll have the 
SVG working group discuss whether we should publish an erratum on this.

Jon Ferraiolo
SVG 1.0 Editor
jferraio@adobe.com

At 11:45 AM 11/6/01 +0100, Vincent Hardy wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>Jeff Tupper / Pedagoguery Software Inc wrote:
>
> >
> > I haven't looked through the SVG documentation much, but I do wonder
> > if the output from using patterns with visible overflow is
> > well-defined. (Is the order of rendering elements of a pattern
> > defined? What should happen when an element of a pattern overlaps
> > another instance of itself? Tess doesn't run into this as all of its
> > elements are 100% opaque and are a single colour.)
>
>This is a good point. Unless I missed it, I think that the spec does
>not specifically say in which order the tiles are painted, even though
>I have assumed it was done in the increasing coordinate order on
>x axis and then y axis (i.e., tile each row left to right and rows
>top to bottom.
>
>Vincent.
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 11:11:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:21 GMT