W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2005

Re: interpretation of rotate= attribute

From: Craig Northway <craign@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:19:51 +1100
Message-ID: <4366D0C7.5040201@cisra.canon.com.au>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: bulia byak <buliabyak@gmail.com>, www-svg@w3.org

Hi,

There's a small problem with the text destined for the specification. 
See my small addition in-line.

Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Monday, April 18, 2005, 10:20:41 PM, bulia wrote:
>
>...
>
>We have now clarified this. The text in the spec is:
>
>  
>
>>>A comma- or space-separated list of <number>s must be provided
>>>provided. The first <number> specifies the supplemental rotation that
>>>must be applied to the glyphs corresponding to the first character
>>>within this element or any of its descendants, the second <number>
>>>specifies the supplemental rotation that must be applied to the
>>>glyphs that correspond to the second character, and so on.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>If more <number>s are provided than there are characters, then the
>>>extra <number>s must be ignored.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>If more characters are provided than <number>s, then for each of
>>>these extra characters the rotation value specified by the last
>>>number must be used.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>This supplemental rotation must have no impact on the rules by which
>>>current text position
>>>
is calculated

>>> as glyphs get rendered.
>>>      
>>>
>
>In consequence, in the case where the list of rotations is of length 1
>(a  single rotation), all the characters rotate. Batik is thus correct
>here.
>
>Please let us know within two weeks if this does not sufficiently
>clarify this part of the spec.
>  
>
Regards,
Craig Northway
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 02:20:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:32 GMT