W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Marker differences - ASV vs Batik

From: Niklas Gustavsson <niklas@protocol7.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:27:44 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <asd2sn$rbe$1@main.gmane.org>
Cc: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com

"Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org> wrote
> On Sunday, December 1, 2002, 3:05:06 AM, Niklas wrote:
>
> NG> (cross-post: be warned)
>
> (wondering what news@main.gmane.org is)

gmane.org offers mailing lists as newsgroups. A great thing for those of us
that like news better then mail :-)

> NG> When doing some experiments with markers I found some differences
> NG> between Batik 1.5b4 and ASV3 and I'm unsure to which one is
> NG> correct. Please help me out since I can't really judge based on
> NG> the spec and I need to know where to send the bug report :-)
>
> I tried it in CSIRO viewer and got a third result... seems to use the
> only outgoing tangent, sometimes ..

Oh. CSV doesn't support markers at all so this is a very heterogenus area.
SVG# is in the proccess of getting support. That was when I discovered the
differences.

> NG> In Batik it looks like this:
> NG> http://www.protocol7.com/svg/markerBugs/batik1.5b4.png
>
> NG> As you can see, the rotation of some of the markers differs
> NG> between the two implementations. Which one is correct?
>
> I don't see why the markers in Batik (and CSIRO) flip by 180 degrees
> for that first mid vertex on the lower left.

So ASV is correct? Also for the polygon?

[snip]
> Hmm it should say the bisector on the shortest arc, clearly there are
> two possible bisectors ....  a possible explanation for the flipped
> first marker ....

Ah, yes! This is the interesting part. So, a implementation should choose
the smallest arc and use that? In that case both ASV and Batik is wrong on
many of the markers in my example. Or do I misunderstand you?

/niklas
Received on Sunday, 1 December 2002 08:32:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:24 GMT